Audit 349360

(2024-016) Title: Internal control over Unemployment Insurance financial reporting needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Labor Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Unemployment Compensation Security and Employment Service Center Office of the State Controller Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Labor Assistance Listing Title: Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 17.225 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.510; Governmental Accounting, Auditing, and Financial Reporting (GAAFR), Part 5, Section A: Internal Control; State Administrative and Accounting Manual (SAAM) Chapter 80 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must prepare a Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for the period covered by the State’s financial statements which must include the total Federal awards expended. At a minimum, the SEFA must provide total Federal awards expended for each individual Federal program. The GAAFR states that a comprehensive framework of internal control is required to obtain reasonable assurance over financial reporting. The Office of the State Controller (OSC) has the responsibility to develop and maintain a system of internal controls and procedures to check the accuracy and reliability of its accounting data, promote operational efficiency, and encourage adherence to prescribed managerial policies for accounting and financial controls. Condition: The Security and Employment Service Center (SESC) is responsible for recording accounting transactions and reconciling balances between Federal funds and the State-funded Unemployment Insurance (UI) program under the Employment Security Fund (ESF). SESC is required to periodically record transfers of revenues and expenditures between Federal and State funds, which are separately presented in the State’s financial statements, but combined for SEFA reporting purposes. OSC compiles information collected from SESC in year-end closing packages for financial and SEFA reporting purposes. The Office of the State Auditor’s (OSA) audit of year-end account balances and related SEFA reporting identified a deposit of $11.6 million, representing a transfer between Federal and State UI funds, that was not accurately recorded. This resulted in the following errors: • ESF Cash & Short-Term Investments was overstated by $11.6 million, and Restricted Deposits & Investments was understated by $11.6 million on the State’s financial statements. • SEFA expenditures were overstated by $11.6 million. OSA proposed an audit adjustment to reclassify and correct the balances on the State’s financial statements and SEFA. The adjustment was recorded by OSC. Context: Before OSA’s proposed audit adjustment: • ESF Cash & Short-Term Investments and Restricted Deposits & Investments totaled $13 million and $735.2 million, respectively. • SEFA expenditures for the UI program totaled $150.7 million. Cause: Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: Before OSC corrected year-end account balances and related SEFA reporting: • ESF asset balances on the State’s financial statements were misclassified. • total expenditures reported on the SEFA were inaccurate. The SEFA is submitted to the Federal government, and errors in reporting may result in incorrect information used for programmatic, policy, or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that SESC and OSC enhance supervisory oversight to ensure that balances reported on the State’s financial statements and SEFA are accurate. Corrective Action Plan: See F-11 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The department will further expand the procedures used to prepare and review the SEFA. Contact: Marilyn Leimbach, Director, Security and Employment Service Center, DFPS, DAFS, 207-248-2556 (State Number: 24-0308-02)

(2024-016) Title: Internal control over Unemployment Insurance financial reporting needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Labor Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Unemployment Compensation Security and Employment Service Center Office of the State Controller Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Labor Assistance Listing Title: Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 17.225 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.510; Governmental Accounting, Auditing, and Financial Reporting (GAAFR), Part 5, Section A: Internal Control; State Administrative and Accounting Manual (SAAM) Chapter 80 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must prepare a Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for the period covered by the State’s financial statements which must include the total Federal awards expended. At a minimum, the SEFA must provide total Federal awards expended for each individual Federal program. The GAAFR states that a comprehensive framework of internal control is required to obtain reasonable assurance over financial reporting. The Office of the State Controller (OSC) has the responsibility to develop and maintain a system of internal controls and procedures to check the accuracy and reliability of its accounting data, promote operational efficiency, and encourage adherence to prescribed managerial policies for accounting and financial controls. Condition: The Security and Employment Service Center (SESC) is responsible for recording accounting transactions and reconciling balances between Federal funds and the State-funded Unemployment Insurance (UI) program under the Employment Security Fund (ESF). SESC is required to periodically record transfers of revenues and expenditures between Federal and State funds, which are separately presented in the State’s financial statements, but combined for SEFA reporting purposes. OSC compiles information collected from SESC in year-end closing packages for financial and SEFA reporting purposes. The Office of the State Auditor’s (OSA) audit of year-end account balances and related SEFA reporting identified a deposit of $11.6 million, representing a transfer between Federal and State UI funds, that was not accurately recorded. This resulted in the following errors: • ESF Cash & Short-Term Investments was overstated by $11.6 million, and Restricted Deposits & Investments was understated by $11.6 million on the State’s financial statements. • SEFA expenditures were overstated by $11.6 million. OSA proposed an audit adjustment to reclassify and correct the balances on the State’s financial statements and SEFA. The adjustment was recorded by OSC. Context: Before OSA’s proposed audit adjustment: • ESF Cash & Short-Term Investments and Restricted Deposits & Investments totaled $13 million and $735.2 million, respectively. • SEFA expenditures for the UI program totaled $150.7 million. Cause: Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: Before OSC corrected year-end account balances and related SEFA reporting: • ESF asset balances on the State’s financial statements were misclassified. • total expenditures reported on the SEFA were inaccurate. The SEFA is submitted to the Federal government, and errors in reporting may result in incorrect information used for programmatic, policy, or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that SESC and OSC enhance supervisory oversight to ensure that balances reported on the State’s financial statements and SEFA are accurate. Corrective Action Plan: See F-11 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The department will further expand the procedures used to prepare and review the SEFA. Contact: Marilyn Leimbach, Director, Security and Employment Service Center, DFPS, DAFS, 207-248-2556 (State Number: 24-0308-02)

(2024-017) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0900-02)

(2024-017) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0900-02)

(2024-017) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0900-02)

(2024-017) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0900-02)

(2024-018) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: None Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0900-03)

(2024-018) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: None Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0900-03)

(2024-018) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: None Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0900-03)

(2024-018) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: None Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0900-03)

(2024-019) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: None Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0902-01)

(2024-019) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: None Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0902-01)

(2024-019) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: None Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0902-01)

(2024-019) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: None Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0902-01)

(2024-020) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirely Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0909-01)

(2024-020) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirely Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0909-01)

(2024-020) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirely Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0909-01)

(2024-020) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirely Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0909-01)

(2024-020) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirely Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0909-01)

(2024-020) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirely Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0909-01)

(2024-020) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirely Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0909-01)

(2024-020) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirely Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0909-01)

(2024-020) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirely Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0909-01)

(2024-020) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirely Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0909-01)

(2024-020) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirely Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0909-01)

(2024-021) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: None Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-13 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0904-01)

(2024-021) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: None Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-13 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0904-01)

(2024-021) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: None Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-13 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0904-01)

(2024-021) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: None Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-13 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0904-01)

(2024-022) Title: Internal control over SNAP eligibility determinations and benefit calculations needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: SNAP Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.551, 10.561 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Eligibility Special tests and provisions Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 10.551 $12,335 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; incorrectly calculated Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits may result in overpayments or underpayments to clients. Since there are known overpayments and underpayments in our sample, a projection of questioned costs cannot be reasonably estimated. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 7 CFR 272.10; 7 CFR 273.2 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. All State agencies must sufficiently automate their SNAP operations and computerize their systems for obtaining, maintaining, utilizing and transmitting information concerning SNAP. A SNAP application form must be signed to establish a filing date and to determine the State agency’s deadline for acting on the form. The State agency shall not certify a household without a signed form. Condition: SNAP is administered by the Office for Family Independence (OFI) and provides monthly benefits to eligible households to purchase nutritious foods. OFI is required by Federal program regulations to utilize an automated information system for SNAP. The information system must maintain all case file information necessary to properly process eligibility determinations and benefit calculations. The Automated Client Eligibility System (ACES) is the information system used by OFI to automate SNAP operations. ACES relies on the maintenance of a complex framework of system results to make eligibility determinations and related benefit calculations. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 household monthly benefit payments to verify the accuracy of SNAP operations utilizing ACES, and identified the following: • Nine overpayments of monthly SNAP benefits, including: o four benefit overpayments totaling $5,806; the Department was unable to provide documentation to support the maximum income limit requirement. o two benefit overpayments totaling $2,714 where the clients’ application for benefit renewal did not include SNAP; however, the households were open to SNAP benefits. o two benefit overpayments totaling $2,349 due to manual processing errors. o one benefit overpayment totaling $1,041; the client’s signature on their application was missing, which makes them ineligible for SNAP benefits. • One $395 underpayment of a monthly SNAP benefit due to manual processing errors • One household with an overpayment of $425 and an underpayment of $69 due to manual processing errors • Three households received accurate monthly benefit payments; however, asset and expense information were not accurately reflected within ACES. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. The Department does not have adequate policies and procedures in place to ensure that ACES case file modifications, whether manual or system interfaced, that result in adjustments to previously issued monthly SNAP benefits are appropriately processed. This includes a recalculation of previously issued benefits when case file modifications are processed, establishment of corresponding overpayments or underpayments, and related follow-up actions with households. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the State provided approximately 129,000 SNAP clients with $371.4 million in Federal benefits. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Benefits may be incorrectly calculated, resulting in households being underpaid and/or overpaid. • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement additional policies and procedures to ensure that: • case information entered into ACES is accurate; • automated eligibility determinations and benefit calculations are processed in accordance with Federal regulations; and • recalculations of previously issued benefits and related follow-up actions occur when case file modifications are retroactive. Corrective Action Plan: See F-13 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. Of the 60 cases reviewed, 13 (21.67%) had errors in calculations or documentation. The Department is confident that the staff followed correct procedures in providing the TANF funded resource guide in the first four cases cited. The errors in these cases were merely a lack of documentation. The Department agrees with the calculation errors in the following 7 cases (11.67% of the 60 reviewed). The Department has developed a corrective action plan to ensure compliance moving forward. Contact: Michael E. Downs, Senior Program Manager, SNAP, DHHS, 207-592-4850 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department states that they are “confident that the staff followed correct procedures” for the four benefit overpayments totaling $5,806 and that “errors in these cases were merely a lack of documentation;” however, the Department cannot substantiate that staff followed established procedures if there is a lack of documentation to support adherence to procedures. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1108-04)

(2024-022) Title: Internal control over SNAP eligibility determinations and benefit calculations needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: SNAP Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.551, 10.561 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Eligibility Special tests and provisions Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 10.551 $12,335 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; incorrectly calculated Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits may result in overpayments or underpayments to clients. Since there are known overpayments and underpayments in our sample, a projection of questioned costs cannot be reasonably estimated. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 7 CFR 272.10; 7 CFR 273.2 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. All State agencies must sufficiently automate their SNAP operations and computerize their systems for obtaining, maintaining, utilizing and transmitting information concerning SNAP. A SNAP application form must be signed to establish a filing date and to determine the State agency’s deadline for acting on the form. The State agency shall not certify a household without a signed form. Condition: SNAP is administered by the Office for Family Independence (OFI) and provides monthly benefits to eligible households to purchase nutritious foods. OFI is required by Federal program regulations to utilize an automated information system for SNAP. The information system must maintain all case file information necessary to properly process eligibility determinations and benefit calculations. The Automated Client Eligibility System (ACES) is the information system used by OFI to automate SNAP operations. ACES relies on the maintenance of a complex framework of system results to make eligibility determinations and related benefit calculations. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 household monthly benefit payments to verify the accuracy of SNAP operations utilizing ACES, and identified the following: • Nine overpayments of monthly SNAP benefits, including: o four benefit overpayments totaling $5,806; the Department was unable to provide documentation to support the maximum income limit requirement. o two benefit overpayments totaling $2,714 where the clients’ application for benefit renewal did not include SNAP; however, the households were open to SNAP benefits. o two benefit overpayments totaling $2,349 due to manual processing errors. o one benefit overpayment totaling $1,041; the client’s signature on their application was missing, which makes them ineligible for SNAP benefits. • One $395 underpayment of a monthly SNAP benefit due to manual processing errors • One household with an overpayment of $425 and an underpayment of $69 due to manual processing errors • Three households received accurate monthly benefit payments; however, asset and expense information were not accurately reflected within ACES. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. The Department does not have adequate policies and procedures in place to ensure that ACES case file modifications, whether manual or system interfaced, that result in adjustments to previously issued monthly SNAP benefits are appropriately processed. This includes a recalculation of previously issued benefits when case file modifications are processed, establishment of corresponding overpayments or underpayments, and related follow-up actions with households. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the State provided approximately 129,000 SNAP clients with $371.4 million in Federal benefits. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Benefits may be incorrectly calculated, resulting in households being underpaid and/or overpaid. • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement additional policies and procedures to ensure that: • case information entered into ACES is accurate; • automated eligibility determinations and benefit calculations are processed in accordance with Federal regulations; and • recalculations of previously issued benefits and related follow-up actions occur when case file modifications are retroactive. Corrective Action Plan: See F-13 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. Of the 60 cases reviewed, 13 (21.67%) had errors in calculations or documentation. The Department is confident that the staff followed correct procedures in providing the TANF funded resource guide in the first four cases cited. The errors in these cases were merely a lack of documentation. The Department agrees with the calculation errors in the following 7 cases (11.67% of the 60 reviewed). The Department has developed a corrective action plan to ensure compliance moving forward. Contact: Michael E. Downs, Senior Program Manager, SNAP, DHHS, 207-592-4850 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department states that they are “confident that the staff followed correct procedures” for the four benefit overpayments totaling $5,806 and that “errors in these cases were merely a lack of documentation;” however, the Department cannot substantiate that staff followed established procedures if there is a lack of documentation to support adherence to procedures. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1108-04)

(2024-023) Title: Internal control over SNAP deceased client cases needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: SNAP Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.551, 10.561 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Eligibility Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 10.551 $11,080 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested a sample of cases where Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits were issued after the client’s date of death (DOD). Issuance of benefits to a deceased client does not necessarily result in unallowable program costs, as the issued benefits may not be expended; therefore, an error rate cannot be applied to the population and a projection of questioned costs cannot be reasonably estimated. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 7 CFR 272.8 and .14 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. State agency action on information items about recipient households shall include review of information and comparison of it to case record information. State agencies must initiate and pursue actions on recipient households within 45 days of the receipt of the information items. States shall establish a system to verify and ensure that benefits are not issued to individuals who are deceased. Condition: The Office for Family Independence (OFI) manages the Automated Client Eligibility System (ACES) used to determine eligibility for Federal assistance programs, including SNAP. Information maintained in ACES is relied upon by OFI for determining monthly SNAP benefits issued to client Electronic Benefit Transaction (EBT) cards. OFI relies on numerous data sources for identifying and providing client DOD information for input into ACES, including monthly data exchanges with the Maine Center for Disease Control & Prevention (MeCDC) Vital Records, which includes Social Security Administration data. Federal program regulations require OFI to act on client cases within 45 days of receipt of DOD information. This includes review and comparison of DOD information to ACES case file information, and suspension of program participation and related benefits as warranted. OFI policies for SNAP require deactivation of the client’s EBT card as well as expungement of authorized benefits from the EBT card. If activity occurred on the client’s EBT card subsequent to the DOD, the case must be reported as potential fraud and referred for investigation. OSA obtained DOD information from MeCDC Vital Records and compared it to clients who received SNAP benefits during fiscal year 2024. OSA identified 214 cases where SNAP benefits were issued more than 75 days following the client’s DOD; this benchmark was applied to denote the 45-day Federal program regulation related to monthly receipt of DOD information. OSA tested 43 of these SNAP cases and identified the following: • 16 single member household clients had EBT card purchase activity after DOD. Of these 16 clients: o 14 clients had transaction activity after DOD that occurred in fiscal year 2024, resulting in unallowable costs totaling $11,080. Additional issues were noted for six of the 14 clients, as follows: • Two clients were not identified as potential fraud in the ACES case file. As a result, they were not referred for investigation as required by OFI policies. • One client’s EBT card was not deactivated upon receipt of DOD information. • Two clients’ benefits were not expunged upon receipt of DOD information as required by OFI policies; benefits were only expunged by the system-automated process based on inactivity after 274 days. • One client’s case remained open 91 days after OFI was notified of the client’s DOD, resulting in three months of unauthorized SNAP benefit issuances. o two clients had transaction activity that occurred subsequent to fiscal year 2024. Of the two clients, one client was not identified as potential fraud in the ACES case file. As a result, they were not referred for investigation as required by OFI policies. • Eight clients with no EBT card purchase activity after DOD had additional issues noted, as follows: o For six clients, the EBT card was never deactivated; therefore, benefits remained open and available for use 83 to 112 days after DOD. o One client’s benefits were not expunged upon receipt of DOD information as required by OFI policies; benefits were only expunged by the system-automated process based on inactivity after 274 days. o One client’s EBT card was never deactivated and benefits were not expunged upon receipt of DOD information as required by OFI policies. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the State provided approximately 129,000 SNAP clients with $371.4 million in Federal benefits. Of the 129,000 SNAP clients, 1,789 had a DOD in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Benefits issued to deceased clients may result in unauthorized EBT card purchase activity. • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance policies and procedures to ensure that DOD information is received, reviewed, and updated in ACES on a more frequent basis to prevent unauthorized SNAP benefit issuances and EBT card purchase activity. In addition, we recommend that the Department review all client cases noted in the Condition of this finding to ensure that: • ACES case file DOD information is accurate; • SNAP benefits are expunged and EBT cards are deactivated in accordance with existing policies; • cases are identified as potential fraud and referred for investigation as warranted; and • unallowable costs are identified and reported to Federal oversight agencies and required recoupment activities are pursued. Corrective Action Plan: See F-13 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. In most cases cited the Department took appropriate action within the 45 days required by federal regulation related to IEVS information or within the 10-12-10 standard required for community complaints depending on the source of the information. The Department recognizes that some actions were lacking or could have been taken more quickly. A dedicated MaineCare Program Integrity Team is now working on the IEVS reports related to deceased members and has detailed SOPs for death matches. Based on the data improvements, this finding may continue to a small degree in the SFY 2025 audit and should be cleaned up in the SFY 2026 audit. Contact: Michael E. Downs, Senior Program Manager, SNAP, DHHS, 207-592-4850 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The exceptions noted in the Condition were identified within a sample of SNAP cases where benefits were issued more than 75 days following the client’s DOD. The 75-day benchmark was applied to include considerations of the monthly (30 day) receipt and the Federal program regulation (45 day). These cases demonstrate that the Department did not take appropriate action as required by Federal regulations in all exceptions identified. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1108-03)

(2024-023) Title: Internal control over SNAP deceased client cases needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: SNAP Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.551, 10.561 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Eligibility Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 10.551 $11,080 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested a sample of cases where Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits were issued after the client’s date of death (DOD). Issuance of benefits to a deceased client does not necessarily result in unallowable program costs, as the issued benefits may not be expended; therefore, an error rate cannot be applied to the population and a projection of questioned costs cannot be reasonably estimated. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 7 CFR 272.8 and .14 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. State agency action on information items about recipient households shall include review of information and comparison of it to case record information. State agencies must initiate and pursue actions on recipient households within 45 days of the receipt of the information items. States shall establish a system to verify and ensure that benefits are not issued to individuals who are deceased. Condition: The Office for Family Independence (OFI) manages the Automated Client Eligibility System (ACES) used to determine eligibility for Federal assistance programs, including SNAP. Information maintained in ACES is relied upon by OFI for determining monthly SNAP benefits issued to client Electronic Benefit Transaction (EBT) cards. OFI relies on numerous data sources for identifying and providing client DOD information for input into ACES, including monthly data exchanges with the Maine Center for Disease Control & Prevention (MeCDC) Vital Records, which includes Social Security Administration data. Federal program regulations require OFI to act on client cases within 45 days of receipt of DOD information. This includes review and comparison of DOD information to ACES case file information, and suspension of program participation and related benefits as warranted. OFI policies for SNAP require deactivation of the client’s EBT card as well as expungement of authorized benefits from the EBT card. If activity occurred on the client’s EBT card subsequent to the DOD, the case must be reported as potential fraud and referred for investigation. OSA obtained DOD information from MeCDC Vital Records and compared it to clients who received SNAP benefits during fiscal year 2024. OSA identified 214 cases where SNAP benefits were issued more than 75 days following the client’s DOD; this benchmark was applied to denote the 45-day Federal program regulation related to monthly receipt of DOD information. OSA tested 43 of these SNAP cases and identified the following: • 16 single member household clients had EBT card purchase activity after DOD. Of these 16 clients: o 14 clients had transaction activity after DOD that occurred in fiscal year 2024, resulting in unallowable costs totaling $11,080. Additional issues were noted for six of the 14 clients, as follows: • Two clients were not identified as potential fraud in the ACES case file. As a result, they were not referred for investigation as required by OFI policies. • One client’s EBT card was not deactivated upon receipt of DOD information. • Two clients’ benefits were not expunged upon receipt of DOD information as required by OFI policies; benefits were only expunged by the system-automated process based on inactivity after 274 days. • One client’s case remained open 91 days after OFI was notified of the client’s DOD, resulting in three months of unauthorized SNAP benefit issuances. o two clients had transaction activity that occurred subsequent to fiscal year 2024. Of the two clients, one client was not identified as potential fraud in the ACES case file. As a result, they were not referred for investigation as required by OFI policies. • Eight clients with no EBT card purchase activity after DOD had additional issues noted, as follows: o For six clients, the EBT card was never deactivated; therefore, benefits remained open and available for use 83 to 112 days after DOD. o One client’s benefits were not expunged upon receipt of DOD information as required by OFI policies; benefits were only expunged by the system-automated process based on inactivity after 274 days. o One client’s EBT card was never deactivated and benefits were not expunged upon receipt of DOD information as required by OFI policies. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the State provided approximately 129,000 SNAP clients with $371.4 million in Federal benefits. Of the 129,000 SNAP clients, 1,789 had a DOD in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Benefits issued to deceased clients may result in unauthorized EBT card purchase activity. • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance policies and procedures to ensure that DOD information is received, reviewed, and updated in ACES on a more frequent basis to prevent unauthorized SNAP benefit issuances and EBT card purchase activity. In addition, we recommend that the Department review all client cases noted in the Condition of this finding to ensure that: • ACES case file DOD information is accurate; • SNAP benefits are expunged and EBT cards are deactivated in accordance with existing policies; • cases are identified as potential fraud and referred for investigation as warranted; and • unallowable costs are identified and reported to Federal oversight agencies and required recoupment activities are pursued. Corrective Action Plan: See F-13 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. In most cases cited the Department took appropriate action within the 45 days required by federal regulation related to IEVS information or within the 10-12-10 standard required for community complaints depending on the source of the information. The Department recognizes that some actions were lacking or could have been taken more quickly. A dedicated MaineCare Program Integrity Team is now working on the IEVS reports related to deceased members and has detailed SOPs for death matches. Based on the data improvements, this finding may continue to a small degree in the SFY 2025 audit and should be cleaned up in the SFY 2026 audit. Contact: Michael E. Downs, Senior Program Manager, SNAP, DHHS, 207-592-4850 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The exceptions noted in the Condition were identified within a sample of SNAP cases where benefits were issued more than 75 days following the client’s DOD. The 75-day benchmark was applied to include considerations of the monthly (30 day) receipt and the Federal program regulation (45 day). These cases demonstrate that the Department did not take appropriate action as required by Federal regulations in all exceptions identified. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1108-03)

(2024-024) Title: Internal control over automated SNAP eligibility certification periods needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: SNAP Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.551, 10.561 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Eligibility Special tests and provisions Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 10.551 $3,973 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; incorrectly suspending Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits may result in overpayments or underpayments to households. Since there are known overpayments and underpayments in our sample, a projection of questioned costs cannot be reasonably estimated. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 7 CFR 272.10; 7 CFR 273.10 and .12 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. All State agencies must sufficiently automate their SNAP operations and computerize their systems for obtaining, maintaining, utilizing and transmitting information concerning SNAP, which includes automatic cutoff of participation for households which have not been recertified at the end of their certification period. SNAP households must be assigned eligibility certification periods of at least six months unless the household is classified as exempt based on program regulations. The State agency must have at least one contact with each SNAP household every 12 months. Submission of periodic eligibility reports is required by non-exempt households. Non-exempt households that are certified for longer than six months must file a periodic report between four months and six months, as required by the State agency. In addition, the State agency must not require the submission of periodic reports by households certified for 12 months or less in which all adult members are elderly or have a disability and no earned income. Condition: SNAP is administered by the Office for Family Independence (OFI) and provides monthly benefits to eligible households to purchase nutritious foods. OFI is required by Federal program regulations to utilize an automated information system for SNAP. The information system must maintain all case file information necessary to properly process eligibility determinations and benefit computations. The Automated Client Eligibility System (ACES) is the information system used by OFI to automate SNAP operations. ACES relies on the maintenance of a complex framework of system rules to make eligibility determinations, including notification letters to clients when 6-month reports and 12-month redeterminations of eligibility are required. All SNAP households, except for elderly and disabled cases with no earned income, are required to submit 6-month reports. In addition, all SNAP households must undergo an annual redetermination of eligibility. Each household’s recertification requirements are indicated by date fields in the ACES case file. If a required report or redetermination is not completed by the date indicated in the applicable field, the case’s monthly SNAP benefit is automatically suspended by the system. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested a sample of 20 cases automatically suspended for failure to complete a required review in fiscal year 2024 to verify the accuracy of automated SNAP operations utilizing ACES. In 14 of the 20 cases tested, OSA identified that ACES incorrectly suspended benefits, as follows: • One case was suspended four months after the 6-month reporting requirement, resulting in a known overpayment of $92. • One case was suspended one month after the annual redetermination requirement, resulting in a known overpayment of $535. • Six cases were underpaid SNAP benefits totaling $4,424 because of incorrect benefit suspensions, ranging from one to five months prior to the applicable 6-month reporting requirement. • Five cases were underpaid SNAP benefits totaling $4,206 because of incorrect benefit suspensions, ranging from five to ten months prior to the annual redetermination requirement. • One case was never required to submit 6-month reports or annual redeterminations since commencement of SNAP benefits in July 2022. This resulted in overpayments for the entirety of fiscal year 2024 totaling $3,346. The Department identified the overpayment in July 2024 but has not recouped it yet, thus OSA is questioning costs totaling $3,346. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the State provided approximately 129,000 SNAP clients with $371.4 million in Federal benefits. 213 clients were automatically suspended by ACES during fiscal year 2024 due to recertification or redetermination requirements. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight • Automated SNAP eligibility system recertification and suspension criteria was not configured in accordance with Federal regulations. Effect: • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Benefits may be incorrectly suspended, resulting in households being underpaid or overpaid. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance policies and procedures to ensure that automated SNAP eligibility certification periods and related ACES case file fields are properly configured to process benefits in accordance with Federal regulations. In addition, we recommend that the Department identify underpayments and/or overpayments resulting from recertification period errors and take action as warranted. Corrective Action Plan: See F-14 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with the factual conclusions and calculations. The Department believes the necessary corrective action has been taken and will be reflected in the SFY25 audit. Contact: Ian Yaffe, Director, Office for Family Independence, DHHS, 207-592-1481 (State Number: 24-1108-02)

(2024-024) Title: Internal control over automated SNAP eligibility certification periods needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: SNAP Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.551, 10.561 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Eligibility Special tests and provisions Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 10.551 $3,973 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; incorrectly suspending Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits may result in overpayments or underpayments to households. Since there are known overpayments and underpayments in our sample, a projection of questioned costs cannot be reasonably estimated. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 7 CFR 272.10; 7 CFR 273.10 and .12 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. All State agencies must sufficiently automate their SNAP operations and computerize their systems for obtaining, maintaining, utilizing and transmitting information concerning SNAP, which includes automatic cutoff of participation for households which have not been recertified at the end of their certification period. SNAP households must be assigned eligibility certification periods of at least six months unless the household is classified as exempt based on program regulations. The State agency must have at least one contact with each SNAP household every 12 months. Submission of periodic eligibility reports is required by non-exempt households. Non-exempt households that are certified for longer than six months must file a periodic report between four months and six months, as required by the State agency. In addition, the State agency must not require the submission of periodic reports by households certified for 12 months or less in which all adult members are elderly or have a disability and no earned income. Condition: SNAP is administered by the Office for Family Independence (OFI) and provides monthly benefits to eligible households to purchase nutritious foods. OFI is required by Federal program regulations to utilize an automated information system for SNAP. The information system must maintain all case file information necessary to properly process eligibility determinations and benefit computations. The Automated Client Eligibility System (ACES) is the information system used by OFI to automate SNAP operations. ACES relies on the maintenance of a complex framework of system rules to make eligibility determinations, including notification letters to clients when 6-month reports and 12-month redeterminations of eligibility are required. All SNAP households, except for elderly and disabled cases with no earned income, are required to submit 6-month reports. In addition, all SNAP households must undergo an annual redetermination of eligibility. Each household’s recertification requirements are indicated by date fields in the ACES case file. If a required report or redetermination is not completed by the date indicated in the applicable field, the case’s monthly SNAP benefit is automatically suspended by the system. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested a sample of 20 cases automatically suspended for failure to complete a required review in fiscal year 2024 to verify the accuracy of automated SNAP operations utilizing ACES. In 14 of the 20 cases tested, OSA identified that ACES incorrectly suspended benefits, as follows: • One case was suspended four months after the 6-month reporting requirement, resulting in a known overpayment of $92. • One case was suspended one month after the annual redetermination requirement, resulting in a known overpayment of $535. • Six cases were underpaid SNAP benefits totaling $4,424 because of incorrect benefit suspensions, ranging from one to five months prior to the applicable 6-month reporting requirement. • Five cases were underpaid SNAP benefits totaling $4,206 because of incorrect benefit suspensions, ranging from five to ten months prior to the annual redetermination requirement. • One case was never required to submit 6-month reports or annual redeterminations since commencement of SNAP benefits in July 2022. This resulted in overpayments for the entirety of fiscal year 2024 totaling $3,346. The Department identified the overpayment in July 2024 but has not recouped it yet, thus OSA is questioning costs totaling $3,346. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the State provided approximately 129,000 SNAP clients with $371.4 million in Federal benefits. 213 clients were automatically suspended by ACES during fiscal year 2024 due to recertification or redetermination requirements. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight • Automated SNAP eligibility system recertification and suspension criteria was not configured in accordance with Federal regulations. Effect: • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Benefits may be incorrectly suspended, resulting in households being underpaid or overpaid. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance policies and procedures to ensure that automated SNAP eligibility certification periods and related ACES case file fields are properly configured to process benefits in accordance with Federal regulations. In addition, we recommend that the Department identify underpayments and/or overpayments resulting from recertification period errors and take action as warranted. Corrective Action Plan: See F-14 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with the factual conclusions and calculations. The Department believes the necessary corrective action has been taken and will be reflected in the SFY25 audit. Contact: Ian Yaffe, Director, Office for Family Independence, DHHS, 207-592-1481 (State Number: 24-1108-02)

(2024-025) Title: Internal control over SNAP EBT card security needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: SNAP Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.551, 10.561 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Special tests and provisions Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 7 CFR 274.5 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The State is required to provide the following minimum security and control procedures for EBT cards: secure storage; access limited to authorized personnel; inventory control records; and a periodic review and validation of inventory controls and records by parties not otherwise involved in maintaining control records. Issuance, inventory, reconciliation, and other accountability records must be maintained for a period of three years. Condition: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides monthly benefits to eligible households to purchase nutritious foods. The program utilizes Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards as the mechanism to provide benefits. SNAP benefit information is transmitted to the Electronic Payment Processing and Information Control (EPPIC) system used for EBT. An EBT card is issued using the EPPIC system and mailed to the client’s mailing address. EBT cards that are undeliverable are returned to the regional Department of Health and Human Services office for processing. Upon receipt of a returned EBT card, the Automated Client Eligibility System (ACES) is used to verify a client’s personal information, determine what action to take based on case file information, and document the action through electronic case notes. The Department has assigned responsibility for processing returned EBT cards to one employee. This process includes receipt of returned cards, maintenance of inventory control records including supporting documentation in ACES and EPPIC, and destruction or retransmission of the card. Proper segregation of duties does not exist within the current process, as recordkeeping, custody of EBT cards, and authorization of processing activity should be assigned to different employees. In addition, the State is required to maintain accurate and complete inventory records for returned EBT cards. Returned cards are either destroyed or retransmitted, and are tracked using spreadsheets and related documentation through client case notes in ACES and EBT card activity in the EPPIC system. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested a sample of 60 returned EBT cards to verify the accuracy and completeness of the activity recorded on the inventory tracking spreadsheets, and identified: • one returned EBT card where processing activity was not documented in a case note; • one returned EBT card where the disabled card status was not applied in the EPPIC system until nine months after it was destroyed; • one returned EBT card where the action documented in ACES did not match the action taken in the EPPIC system; and • two returned EBT cards were recorded on the tracking spreadsheet as retransmitted to an updated address, but no documentation was maintained in ACES to support that a new address was obtained. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. A data analysis and cross-match of the inventory tracking spreadsheets identified that one returned EBT card was processed utilizing client information which erroneously included two unrelated client names tied to the same client identification number. Quarterly, management monitors the inventory tracking spreadsheets by selecting a sample of returned EBT cards for review; however, this oversight procedure does not detect and correct processing errors on a timely basis. Furthermore, the State is required to maintain secure storage of, and limited access to, EBT cards. The current process does not require proper physical security over returned EBT cards as the returned cards are placed in an open mailbox during processing. While the mailbox is in a secure area of the facility, any employee working within the regional office has access to this mailbox. Existing policies and procedures in place do not provide adequate security over returned EBT cards, including proper segregation of duties, maintenance of accurate and complete inventory control records, and appropriate physical security controls over EBT cards. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the State provided approximately 129,000 SNAP clients with $371.4 million in Federal benefits. The Department processed 2,469 returned EBT cards; 853 were recorded as retransmitted and 1,616 were recorded as destroyed. Cause: • Lack of segregation of duties • Lack of adequate policies and procedures relating to the security and oversight of returned EBT cards Effect: • Potential unauthorized use of EBT cards, which may lead to unallowable costs • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance policies and procedures to require adequate security and oversight of returned EBT cards, including proper segregation of duties within the process, maintenance of accurate and complete inventory control records, and increased physical security controls. Corrective Action Plan: See F-14 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. During the audit period, the process for handling returned EBT cards was assigned to one (1) individual. In response to a prior year finding, the Department implemented corrective actions effective July 1, 2024. The current process has the duties separated into 3 roles. First, an Accounting Associate I receives the returned EBT cards at OFI’s Central Office. The Accounting Associate scans the card and envelope to an Office Associate II in a separate office. The Office Associate II enters the cards into a spreadsheet (returned card log) and researches the cases to determine what to do with the card. The Office Associate records the necessary information into the returned card log and makes an ACES case note to reflect any action taken. Then a response is sent back to the Accounting Associate to advise which EBT cards should be shredded and which cards should be resent. Finally, the EBT Manager conducts a periodic review of the returned card log to ensure the cards are being handled appropriately. The Department will also be hiring a new Office Associate II (Supervisor) to assist in this process. Because these procedures were implemented effective 7/1/2024, they were not captured during this single audit. No corrective action is required due to our current procedures meeting state and Federal card security requirements. Contact: Ian Yaffe, Director, Office for Family Independence, DHHS, 207-592-1481 (State Number: 24-1108-01)

(2024-025) Title: Internal control over SNAP EBT card security needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: SNAP Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.551, 10.561 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Special tests and provisions Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 7 CFR 274.5 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The State is required to provide the following minimum security and control procedures for EBT cards: secure storage; access limited to authorized personnel; inventory control records; and a periodic review and validation of inventory controls and records by parties not otherwise involved in maintaining control records. Issuance, inventory, reconciliation, and other accountability records must be maintained for a period of three years. Condition: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides monthly benefits to eligible households to purchase nutritious foods. The program utilizes Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards as the mechanism to provide benefits. SNAP benefit information is transmitted to the Electronic Payment Processing and Information Control (EPPIC) system used for EBT. An EBT card is issued using the EPPIC system and mailed to the client’s mailing address. EBT cards that are undeliverable are returned to the regional Department of Health and Human Services office for processing. Upon receipt of a returned EBT card, the Automated Client Eligibility System (ACES) is used to verify a client’s personal information, determine what action to take based on case file information, and document the action through electronic case notes. The Department has assigned responsibility for processing returned EBT cards to one employee. This process includes receipt of returned cards, maintenance of inventory control records including supporting documentation in ACES and EPPIC, and destruction or retransmission of the card. Proper segregation of duties does not exist within the current process, as recordkeeping, custody of EBT cards, and authorization of processing activity should be assigned to different employees. In addition, the State is required to maintain accurate and complete inventory records for returned EBT cards. Returned cards are either destroyed or retransmitted, and are tracked using spreadsheets and related documentation through client case notes in ACES and EBT card activity in the EPPIC system. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested a sample of 60 returned EBT cards to verify the accuracy and completeness of the activity recorded on the inventory tracking spreadsheets, and identified: • one returned EBT card where processing activity was not documented in a case note; • one returned EBT card where the disabled card status was not applied in the EPPIC system until nine months after it was destroyed; • one returned EBT card where the action documented in ACES did not match the action taken in the EPPIC system; and • two returned EBT cards were recorded on the tracking spreadsheet as retransmitted to an updated address, but no documentation was maintained in ACES to support that a new address was obtained. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. A data analysis and cross-match of the inventory tracking spreadsheets identified that one returned EBT card was processed utilizing client information which erroneously included two unrelated client names tied to the same client identification number. Quarterly, management monitors the inventory tracking spreadsheets by selecting a sample of returned EBT cards for review; however, this oversight procedure does not detect and correct processing errors on a timely basis. Furthermore, the State is required to maintain secure storage of, and limited access to, EBT cards. The current process does not require proper physical security over returned EBT cards as the returned cards are placed in an open mailbox during processing. While the mailbox is in a secure area of the facility, any employee working within the regional office has access to this mailbox. Existing policies and procedures in place do not provide adequate security over returned EBT cards, including proper segregation of duties, maintenance of accurate and complete inventory control records, and appropriate physical security controls over EBT cards. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the State provided approximately 129,000 SNAP clients with $371.4 million in Federal benefits. The Department processed 2,469 returned EBT cards; 853 were recorded as retransmitted and 1,616 were recorded as destroyed. Cause: • Lack of segregation of duties • Lack of adequate policies and procedures relating to the security and oversight of returned EBT cards Effect: • Potential unauthorized use of EBT cards, which may lead to unallowable costs • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance policies and procedures to require adequate security and oversight of returned EBT cards, including proper segregation of duties within the process, maintenance of accurate and complete inventory control records, and increased physical security controls. Corrective Action Plan: See F-14 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. During the audit period, the process for handling returned EBT cards was assigned to one (1) individual. In response to a prior year finding, the Department implemented corrective actions effective July 1, 2024. The current process has the duties separated into 3 roles. First, an Accounting Associate I receives the returned EBT cards at OFI’s Central Office. The Accounting Associate scans the card and envelope to an Office Associate II in a separate office. The Office Associate II enters the cards into a spreadsheet (returned card log) and researches the cases to determine what to do with the card. The Office Associate records the necessary information into the returned card log and makes an ACES case note to reflect any action taken. Then a response is sent back to the Accounting Associate to advise which EBT cards should be shredded and which cards should be resent. Finally, the EBT Manager conducts a periodic review of the returned card log to ensure the cards are being handled appropriately. The Department will also be hiring a new Office Associate II (Supervisor) to assist in this process. Because these procedures were implemented effective 7/1/2024, they were not captured during this single audit. No corrective action is required due to our current procedures meeting state and Federal card security requirements. Contact: Ian Yaffe, Director, Office for Family Independence, DHHS, 207-592-1481 (State Number: 24-1108-01)

(2024-026) Title: Internal control over DHHS special reporting needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Division of Contract Management Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: SNAP Cluster Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) (COVID-19) Opioid STR Assistance Listing Number: 10.551, 10.561; 10.557; 93.788 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 170 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Agencies must report each subaward that equals or exceeds the first-tier subaward threshold of $30,000 in Federal funds in the public-facing Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) Subaward Reporting System (FSRS). Condition: When an amount exceeding the first-tier subaward threshold is awarded to a subrecipient, the Department must collect and enter data into FSRS. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested nine first-tier subawards totaling $1,515,620 that exceeded the first-tier subaward threshold. Federal regulations require the following information for identified noncompliance to be included in FFATA findings: • three WIC subawards totaling approximately $746,000 were not reported and thus, not reported timely; • one Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) subaward totaling approximately $95,000 was not reported and thus, not reported timely; • one Opioid State Targeted Response (STR) subaward totaling approximately $68,000 was not reported and thus, not reported timely; • no subaward amounts were reported incorrectly; and • no subawards reported incorrect key data elements. The unreported Opioid STR subaward was a contract modification that included multiple sources of grant funds including the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Upon OSA’s inquiry, the Department stated that the Opioid STR subaward was not reported because the Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN) was missing. The Department provided a verification workbook that serves as a working log for subawards that may require FFATA reporting but have not been reported in FSRS for various reasons. Review of the log revealed additional grant programs, including WIC and SNAP, with unreported subawards due to missing FAINs. OSA was able to locate the missing FAINs by contacting the grant program administrators listed on the encumbered contract. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: During fiscal year 2024, the Department disbursed: • $5.9 million to subrecipients from WIC grant funds of $22.8 million. • $5.2 million to subrecipients from SNAP administrative grant funds of $19.1 million. • $4.9 million to subrecipients from Opioid STR grant funds of $5.9 million. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate policies and procedures Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Accurate first-tier subaward information for the WIC, SNAP, and Opioid STR programs was not reported to the Federal government. This information may be used for programmatic, policy or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance policies and oversight procedures to ensure that all first-tier subawards are reported accurately, timely, and in accordance with Federal regulations. Corrective Action Plan: See F-14 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Division of Contract Management has developed and will implement a corrective action plan to address the issues identified. Contact: Jeanne Garza, Deputy Director, Division of Contract Management, DHHS, 207-287-1848 (State Number: 24-1100-02)

(2024-026) Title: Internal control over DHHS special reporting needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Division of Contract Management Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: SNAP Cluster Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) (COVID-19) Opioid STR Assistance Listing Number: 10.551, 10.561; 10.557; 93.788 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 170 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Agencies must report each subaward that equals or exceeds the first-tier subaward threshold of $30,000 in Federal funds in the public-facing Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) Subaward Reporting System (FSRS). Condition: When an amount exceeding the first-tier subaward threshold is awarded to a subrecipient, the Department must collect and enter data into FSRS. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested nine first-tier subawards totaling $1,515,620 that exceeded the first-tier subaward threshold. Federal regulations require the following information for identified noncompliance to be included in FFATA findings: • three WIC subawards totaling approximately $746,000 were not reported and thus, not reported timely; • one Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) subaward totaling approximately $95,000 was not reported and thus, not reported timely; • one Opioid State Targeted Response (STR) subaward totaling approximately $68,000 was not reported and thus, not reported timely; • no subaward amounts were reported incorrectly; and • no subawards reported incorrect key data elements. The unreported Opioid STR subaward was a contract modification that included multiple sources of grant funds including the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Upon OSA’s inquiry, the Department stated that the Opioid STR subaward was not reported because the Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN) was missing. The Department provided a verification workbook that serves as a working log for subawards that may require FFATA reporting but have not been reported in FSRS for various reasons. Review of the log revealed additional grant programs, including WIC and SNAP, with unreported subawards due to missing FAINs. OSA was able to locate the missing FAINs by contacting the grant program administrators listed on the encumbered contract. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: During fiscal year 2024, the Department disbursed: • $5.9 million to subrecipients from WIC grant funds of $22.8 million. • $5.2 million to subrecipients from SNAP administrative grant funds of $19.1 million. • $4.9 million to subrecipients from Opioid STR grant funds of $5.9 million. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate policies and procedures Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Accurate first-tier subaward information for the WIC, SNAP, and Opioid STR programs was not reported to the Federal government. This information may be used for programmatic, policy or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance policies and oversight procedures to ensure that all first-tier subawards are reported accurately, timely, and in accordance with Federal regulations. Corrective Action Plan: See F-14 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Division of Contract Management has developed and will implement a corrective action plan to address the issues identified. Contact: Jeanne Garza, Deputy Director, Division of Contract Management, DHHS, 207-287-1848 (State Number: 24-1100-02)

(2024-026) Title: Internal control over DHHS special reporting needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Division of Contract Management Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: SNAP Cluster Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) (COVID-19) Opioid STR Assistance Listing Number: 10.551, 10.561; 10.557; 93.788 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 170 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Agencies must report each subaward that equals or exceeds the first-tier subaward threshold of $30,000 in Federal funds in the public-facing Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) Subaward Reporting System (FSRS). Condition: When an amount exceeding the first-tier subaward threshold is awarded to a subrecipient, the Department must collect and enter data into FSRS. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested nine first-tier subawards totaling $1,515,620 that exceeded the first-tier subaward threshold. Federal regulations require the following information for identified noncompliance to be included in FFATA findings: • three WIC subawards totaling approximately $746,000 were not reported and thus, not reported timely; • one Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) subaward totaling approximately $95,000 was not reported and thus, not reported timely; • one Opioid State Targeted Response (STR) subaward totaling approximately $68,000 was not reported and thus, not reported timely; • no subaward amounts were reported incorrectly; and • no subawards reported incorrect key data elements. The unreported Opioid STR subaward was a contract modification that included multiple sources of grant funds including the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Upon OSA’s inquiry, the Department stated that the Opioid STR subaward was not reported because the Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN) was missing. The Department provided a verification workbook that serves as a working log for subawards that may require FFATA reporting but have not been reported in FSRS for various reasons. Review of the log revealed additional grant programs, including WIC and SNAP, with unreported subawards due to missing FAINs. OSA was able to locate the missing FAINs by contacting the grant program administrators listed on the encumbered contract. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: During fiscal year 2024, the Department disbursed: • $5.9 million to subrecipients from WIC grant funds of $22.8 million. • $5.2 million to subrecipients from SNAP administrative grant funds of $19.1 million. • $4.9 million to subrecipients from Opioid STR grant funds of $5.9 million. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate policies and procedures Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Accurate first-tier subaward information for the WIC, SNAP, and Opioid STR programs was not reported to the Federal government. This information may be used for programmatic, policy or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance policies and oversight procedures to ensure that all first-tier subawards are reported accurately, timely, and in accordance with Federal regulations. Corrective Action Plan: See F-14 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Division of Contract Management has developed and will implement a corrective action plan to address the issues identified. Contact: Jeanne Garza, Deputy Director, Division of Contract Management, DHHS, 207-287-1848 (State Number: 24-1100-02)

(2024-026) Title: Internal control over DHHS special reporting needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Division of Contract Management Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: SNAP Cluster Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) (COVID-19) Opioid STR Assistance Listing Number: 10.551, 10.561; 10.557; 93.788 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 170 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Agencies must report each subaward that equals or exceeds the first-tier subaward threshold of $30,000 in Federal funds in the public-facing Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) Subaward Reporting System (FSRS). Condition: When an amount exceeding the first-tier subaward threshold is awarded to a subrecipient, the Department must collect and enter data into FSRS. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested nine first-tier subawards totaling $1,515,620 that exceeded the first-tier subaward threshold. Federal regulations require the following information for identified noncompliance to be included in FFATA findings: • three WIC subawards totaling approximately $746,000 were not reported and thus, not reported timely; • one Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) subaward totaling approximately $95,000 was not reported and thus, not reported timely; • one Opioid State Targeted Response (STR) subaward totaling approximately $68,000 was not reported and thus, not reported timely; • no subaward amounts were reported incorrectly; and • no subawards reported incorrect key data elements. The unreported Opioid STR subaward was a contract modification that included multiple sources of grant funds including the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Upon OSA’s inquiry, the Department stated that the Opioid STR subaward was not reported because the Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN) was missing. The Department provided a verification workbook that serves as a working log for subawards that may require FFATA reporting but have not been reported in FSRS for various reasons. Review of the log revealed additional grant programs, including WIC and SNAP, with unreported subawards due to missing FAINs. OSA was able to locate the missing FAINs by contacting the grant program administrators listed on the encumbered contract. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: During fiscal year 2024, the Department disbursed: • $5.9 million to subrecipients from WIC grant funds of $22.8 million. • $5.2 million to subrecipients from SNAP administrative grant funds of $19.1 million. • $4.9 million to subrecipients from Opioid STR grant funds of $5.9 million. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate policies and procedures Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Accurate first-tier subaward information for the WIC, SNAP, and Opioid STR programs was not reported to the Federal government. This information may be used for programmatic, policy or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance policies and oversight procedures to ensure that all first-tier subawards are reported accurately, timely, and in accordance with Federal regulations. Corrective Action Plan: See F-14 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Division of Contract Management has developed and will implement a corrective action plan to address the issues identified. Contact: Jeanne Garza, Deputy Director, Division of Contract Management, DHHS, 207-287-1848 (State Number: 24-1100-02)

(2024-026) Title: Internal control over DHHS special reporting needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Division of Contract Management Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: SNAP Cluster Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) (COVID-19) Opioid STR Assistance Listing Number: 10.551, 10.561; 10.557; 93.788 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 170 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Agencies must report each subaward that equals or exceeds the first-tier subaward threshold of $30,000 in Federal funds in the public-facing Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) Subaward Reporting System (FSRS). Condition: When an amount exceeding the first-tier subaward threshold is awarded to a subrecipient, the Department must collect and enter data into FSRS. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested nine first-tier subawards totaling $1,515,620 that exceeded the first-tier subaward threshold. Federal regulations require the following information for identified noncompliance to be included in FFATA findings: • three WIC subawards totaling approximately $746,000 were not reported and thus, not reported timely; • one Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) subaward totaling approximately $95,000 was not reported and thus, not reported timely; • one Opioid State Targeted Response (STR) subaward totaling approximately $68,000 was not reported and thus, not reported timely; • no subaward amounts were reported incorrectly; and • no subawards reported incorrect key data elements. The unreported Opioid STR subaward was a contract modification that included multiple sources of grant funds including the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Upon OSA’s inquiry, the Department stated that the Opioid STR subaward was not reported because the Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN) was missing. The Department provided a verification workbook that serves as a working log for subawards that may require FFATA reporting but have not been reported in FSRS for various reasons. Review of the log revealed additional grant programs, including WIC and SNAP, with unreported subawards due to missing FAINs. OSA was able to locate the missing FAINs by contacting the grant program administrators listed on the encumbered contract. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: During fiscal year 2024, the Department disbursed: • $5.9 million to subrecipients from WIC grant funds of $22.8 million. • $5.2 million to subrecipients from SNAP administrative grant funds of $19.1 million. • $4.9 million to subrecipients from Opioid STR grant funds of $5.9 million. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate policies and procedures Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Accurate first-tier subaward information for the WIC, SNAP, and Opioid STR programs was not reported to the Federal government. This information may be used for programmatic, policy or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance policies and oversight procedures to ensure that all first-tier subawards are reported accurately, timely, and in accordance with Federal regulations. Corrective Action Plan: See F-14 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Division of Contract Management has developed and will implement a corrective action plan to address the issues identified. Contact: Jeanne Garza, Deputy Director, Division of Contract Management, DHHS, 207-287-1848 (State Number: 24-1100-02)

(2024-027) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0905-01)

(2024-027) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0905-01)

(2024-027) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0905-01)

(2024-027) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0905-01)

(2024-029) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0905-02)

(2024-029) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0905-02)

(2024-029) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0905-02)

(2024-029) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0905-02)

(2024-028) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0905-03)

(2024-028) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0905-03)

(2024-028) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0905-03)

(2024-028) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0905-03)

(2024-028) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0905-03)

(2024-028) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0905-03)

(2024-028) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0905-03)

(2024-028) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0905-03)

(2024-030) Title: Internal control over CNC eligibility needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Eligibility Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 10.559 $628,924 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; there is insufficient information on the application to identify programs that may be operating under an incorrect classification. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 7 CFR 210.7 and .9; 7 CFR 225.6, .14, and .16; 7 CFR 245.12 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. 7 CFR 210 outlines the application requirements for participation in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), and specifies that applications shall provide the State agency with sufficient information to determine eligibility. 7 CFR 225 requirements include: • the type of information that must be required in sponsor applications for participation; • sites that serve an area in which poor economic conditions exist or is approved for reimbursement only for meals served free to enrolled children who meet the program's income standards; • the proposed site is not or will not be served in whole or in part by another site; • State agency requirements related to the approval of applications and determinations of eligibility; and • the process and requirements for claims for reimbursement (CFRs). 7 CFR 245 describes the action taken by State agencies related to the eligibility determination of individuals and special eligibility determinations of schools including Provision II and Community Eligible Provision (CEP) schools. These regulations outline how the School Food Authority (SFA) and State agency should collect and report eligibility information in the schools, and how that information should be used in establishing rates and percentages in CFRs. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) includes the School Breakfast Program, NSLP, Special Milk Program for Children, Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) and the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools, residential childcare institutions, and summer food programs; to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools; and to encourage the consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department of Education (DOE) is responsible for the administration of child nutrition programs for the State. DOE provides benefits to each SFA or sponsor on a reimbursement basis. SFAs and sponsors must submit applications for participation in CNC programs and DOE is required to review every application and site information sheet to ensure that only eligible SFAs or sponsors participate in the programs. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 48 applications and found instances that did not align with program regulations for NSLP and SFSP, as follows: National School Lunch Program Applications to participate in child nutrition programs must include attestations and written agreement to the regulations set forth in 7 CFR 210 and 7 CFR 245. Agreements must be signed and returned to Child Nutrition Services (CNS) prior to meal service and the submission of a CFR by the SFA. OSA tested 32 applications from SFAs and sponsors for participation in NSLP and identified six applications that were not complete or were approved prior to participation in the program, as follows: • Three applications were approved for participation with missing information, including: o one application missing an agreement for participation in CEP; o one application not indicating the year of operation; and o one application missing the signature of the SFA superintendent. • Two applications were submitted after participation in the program had begun. • One application was missing the meal pattern agreement attestation that made them eligible for the eight-cent performance-based reimbursement for every lunch served and was also submitted after participation in the program had begun. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Summer Food Service Program While SFAs may operate SFSP, residential and non-residential day camps, units of local, municipal, county or State governments, and private nonprofit organizations may also participate in the program; these providers are called sponsors. Sponsors must submit a written application to CNS by June 15 to participate in the program. Sponsors operate individual sites, and sponsor applications must include site sheets for each site. OSA tested 16 applications from sponsors for participation in SFSP and found: • four applications were revised and the revisions were erroneously applied to prior months, resulting in questioned costs totaling $1,767 for meals served prior to approved revisions; and • eleven applications, including two with more than one error, that were approved with sites that did not meet the eligibility criteria, as follows: o Four sponsors had sites where CNS incorrectly categorized non-residential day camps as open sites, which allowed the site to use the area eligibility determination instead of using individual eligibility determinations, resulting in questioned costs totaling $68,342 for meals served without eligibility information provided. o Two sponsors of camps did not provide the number of eligible children for each session at their sites prior to submitting a CFR, resulting in questioned costs totaling $63,493 for meals served without eligibility information provided. o Three sponsors had four sites that used incorrect school or census data to demonstrate eligibility, resulting in one site that was ineligible for participation, and questioned costs totaling $33,682 for the operation of an ineligible site. o One application was approved with a breakfast time of 11:30 a.m.; there was no documentation to support that this meal was served near the site’s opening time as required by regulations, resulting in questioned costs totaling $8,635 for meals that do meet meal time requirements. o Three applications were approved for non-congregate sites that did not include procedures to ensure duplicate meals would not be distributed. One sponsor had seven open sites with overlapping meal times within a quarter-mile radius. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. In addition, OSA performed analytical procedures over SFSP site classifications and found: • 58 sites from 32 sponsors did not apply eligibility criteria for camp participation, as follows: o 29 sites were classified as open sites or closed enrolled sites when additional information on the application or publicly available information indicated that the program met the definition of camps provided at 7 CFR 225; these sites used area eligibility to claim reimbursement for all meals served instead of only the meals served to eligible children, resulting in questioned costs totaling $208,142. o 9 sites indicated they were camps; however, they were classified as open sites or closed enrolled sites that used area eligibility to claim reimbursement for all meals served instead of only the meals served to eligible children, resulting in questioned costs totaling $100,379. o 13 sites indicated they were camps; however, their applications were not revised to include actual eligibility counts for each session prior to submission of CFRs, resulting in questioned costs totaling $82,567. o 7 sites described camp activities in their description of operations, but classified themselves as open sites or closed enrolled sites that used area eligibility to claim reimbursement for all meals served instead of only the meals served to eligible campers, resulting in questioned costs totaling $48,224. • 16 sponsors had site revisions approved by CNS that added operating days, increased capacities, changed meal types, added meals, or added non-congregate operations to a prior month. CNS permitted sponsors to include those revisions in the prior month’s CFR which were not in accordance with the agreement in place at the time of service, resulting in questioned costs totaling $13,693. Context: CNS processed $55.8 million in CFRs for NSLP, and $2.8 million in CFRs for SFSP in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • CNC participation by ineligible SFAs or sponsors • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that CNS revise policies and procedures to ensure: • SFSP site information sheet revisions prohibit the sponsor from using the revised information in a claim for a prior month; • site classifications appropriately identify camps, consistent with Federal regulations; and • site information sheets contain non-congregate plans that include required information. Additionally, we recommend that CNS enhance oversight to ensure: • all required documents for applications are complete and signed prior to meal service; • session-specific eligibility information is available on the site information sheets for camps; and • the eligibility of the locations of non-congregate sites is properly supported. Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. Procedures for “Application Approvals” will be delineated regarding application and claim revisions, Site classification, non-congregate plan requirements, Eligibility criteria and back up documentation, and all requirement documents will be adequately reviewed. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 (State Number: 24-1203-05)

(2024-030) Title: Internal control over CNC eligibility needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Eligibility Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 10.559 $628,924 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; there is insufficient information on the application to identify programs that may be operating under an incorrect classification. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 7 CFR 210.7 and .9; 7 CFR 225.6, .14, and .16; 7 CFR 245.12 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. 7 CFR 210 outlines the application requirements for participation in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), and specifies that applications shall provide the State agency with sufficient information to determine eligibility. 7 CFR 225 requirements include: • the type of information that must be required in sponsor applications for participation; • sites that serve an area in which poor economic conditions exist or is approved for reimbursement only for meals served free to enrolled children who meet the program's income standards; • the proposed site is not or will not be served in whole or in part by another site; • State agency requirements related to the approval of applications and determinations of eligibility; and • the process and requirements for claims for reimbursement (CFRs). 7 CFR 245 describes the action taken by State agencies related to the eligibility determination of individuals and special eligibility determinations of schools including Provision II and Community Eligible Provision (CEP) schools. These regulations outline how the School Food Authority (SFA) and State agency should collect and report eligibility information in the schools, and how that information should be used in establishing rates and percentages in CFRs. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) includes the School Breakfast Program, NSLP, Special Milk Program for Children, Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) and the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools, residential childcare institutions, and summer food programs; to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools; and to encourage the consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department of Education (DOE) is responsible for the administration of child nutrition programs for the State. DOE provides benefits to each SFA or sponsor on a reimbursement basis. SFAs and sponsors must submit applications for participation in CNC programs and DOE is required to review every application and site information sheet to ensure that only eligible SFAs or sponsors participate in the programs. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 48 applications and found instances that did not align with program regulations for NSLP and SFSP, as follows: National School Lunch Program Applications to participate in child nutrition programs must include attestations and written agreement to the regulations set forth in 7 CFR 210 and 7 CFR 245. Agreements must be signed and returned to Child Nutrition Services (CNS) prior to meal service and the submission of a CFR by the SFA. OSA tested 32 applications from SFAs and sponsors for participation in NSLP and identified six applications that were not complete or were approved prior to participation in the program, as follows: • Three applications were approved for participation with missing information, including: o one application missing an agreement for participation in CEP; o one application not indicating the year of operation; and o one application missing the signature of the SFA superintendent. • Two applications were submitted after participation in the program had begun. • One application was missing the meal pattern agreement attestation that made them eligible for the eight-cent performance-based reimbursement for every lunch served and was also submitted after participation in the program had begun. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Summer Food Service Program While SFAs may operate SFSP, residential and non-residential day camps, units of local, municipal, county or State governments, and private nonprofit organizations may also participate in the program; these providers are called sponsors. Sponsors must submit a written application to CNS by June 15 to participate in the program. Sponsors operate individual sites, and sponsor applications must include site sheets for each site. OSA tested 16 applications from sponsors for participation in SFSP and found: • four applications were revised and the revisions were erroneously applied to prior months, resulting in questioned costs totaling $1,767 for meals served prior to approved revisions; and • eleven applications, including two with more than one error, that were approved with sites that did not meet the eligibility criteria, as follows: o Four sponsors had sites where CNS incorrectly categorized non-residential day camps as open sites, which allowed the site to use the area eligibility determination instead of using individual eligibility determinations, resulting in questioned costs totaling $68,342 for meals served without eligibility information provided. o Two sponsors of camps did not provide the number of eligible children for each session at their sites prior to submitting a CFR, resulting in questioned costs totaling $63,493 for meals served without eligibility information provided. o Three sponsors had four sites that used incorrect school or census data to demonstrate eligibility, resulting in one site that was ineligible for participation, and questioned costs totaling $33,682 for the operation of an ineligible site. o One application was approved with a breakfast time of 11:30 a.m.; there was no documentation to support that this meal was served near the site’s opening time as required by regulations, resulting in questioned costs totaling $8,635 for meals that do meet meal time requirements. o Three applications were approved for non-congregate sites that did not include procedures to ensure duplicate meals would not be distributed. One sponsor had seven open sites with overlapping meal times within a quarter-mile radius. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. In addition, OSA performed analytical procedures over SFSP site classifications and found: • 58 sites from 32 sponsors did not apply eligibility criteria for camp participation, as follows: o 29 sites were classified as open sites or closed enrolled sites when additional information on the application or publicly available information indicated that the program met the definition of camps provided at 7 CFR 225; these sites used area eligibility to claim reimbursement for all meals served instead of only the meals served to eligible children, resulting in questioned costs totaling $208,142. o 9 sites indicated they were camps; however, they were classified as open sites or closed enrolled sites that used area eligibility to claim reimbursement for all meals served instead of only the meals served to eligible children, resulting in questioned costs totaling $100,379. o 13 sites indicated they were camps; however, their applications were not revised to include actual eligibility counts for each session prior to submission of CFRs, resulting in questioned costs totaling $82,567. o 7 sites described camp activities in their description of operations, but classified themselves as open sites or closed enrolled sites that used area eligibility to claim reimbursement for all meals served instead of only the meals served to eligible campers, resulting in questioned costs totaling $48,224. • 16 sponsors had site revisions approved by CNS that added operating days, increased capacities, changed meal types, added meals, or added non-congregate operations to a prior month. CNS permitted sponsors to include those revisions in the prior month’s CFR which were not in accordance with the agreement in place at the time of service, resulting in questioned costs totaling $13,693. Context: CNS processed $55.8 million in CFRs for NSLP, and $2.8 million in CFRs for SFSP in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • CNC participation by ineligible SFAs or sponsors • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that CNS revise policies and procedures to ensure: • SFSP site information sheet revisions prohibit the sponsor from using the revised information in a claim for a prior month; • site classifications appropriately identify camps, consistent with Federal regulations; and • site information sheets contain non-congregate plans that include required information. Additionally, we recommend that CNS enhance oversight to ensure: • all required documents for applications are complete and signed prior to meal service; • session-specific eligibility information is available on the site information sheets for camps; and • the eligibility of the locations of non-congregate sites is properly supported. Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. Procedures for “Application Approvals” will be delineated regarding application and claim revisions, Site classification, non-congregate plan requirements, Eligibility criteria and back up documentation, and all requirement documents will be adequately reviewed. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 (State Number: 24-1203-05)

(2024-030) Title: Internal control over CNC eligibility needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Eligibility Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 10.559 $628,924 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; there is insufficient information on the application to identify programs that may be operating under an incorrect classification. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 7 CFR 210.7 and .9; 7 CFR 225.6, .14, and .16; 7 CFR 245.12 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. 7 CFR 210 outlines the application requirements for participation in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), and specifies that applications shall provide the State agency with sufficient information to determine eligibility. 7 CFR 225 requirements include: • the type of information that must be required in sponsor applications for participation; • sites that serve an area in which poor economic conditions exist or is approved for reimbursement only for meals served free to enrolled children who meet the program's income standards; • the proposed site is not or will not be served in whole or in part by another site; • State agency requirements related to the approval of applications and determinations of eligibility; and • the process and requirements for claims for reimbursement (CFRs). 7 CFR 245 describes the action taken by State agencies related to the eligibility determination of individuals and special eligibility determinations of schools including Provision II and Community Eligible Provision (CEP) schools. These regulations outline how the School Food Authority (SFA) and State agency should collect and report eligibility information in the schools, and how that information should be used in establishing rates and percentages in CFRs. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) includes the School Breakfast Program, NSLP, Special Milk Program for Children, Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) and the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools, residential childcare institutions, and summer food programs; to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools; and to encourage the consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department of Education (DOE) is responsible for the administration of child nutrition programs for the State. DOE provides benefits to each SFA or sponsor on a reimbursement basis. SFAs and sponsors must submit applications for participation in CNC programs and DOE is required to review every application and site information sheet to ensure that only eligible SFAs or sponsors participate in the programs. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 48 applications and found instances that did not align with program regulations for NSLP and SFSP, as follows: National School Lunch Program Applications to participate in child nutrition programs must include attestations and written agreement to the regulations set forth in 7 CFR 210 and 7 CFR 245. Agreements must be signed and returned to Child Nutrition Services (CNS) prior to meal service and the submission of a CFR by the SFA. OSA tested 32 applications from SFAs and sponsors for participation in NSLP and identified six applications that were not complete or were approved prior to participation in the program, as follows: • Three applications were approved for participation with missing information, including: o one application missing an agreement for participation in CEP; o one application not indicating the year of operation; and o one application missing the signature of the SFA superintendent. • Two applications were submitted after participation in the program had begun. • One application was missing the meal pattern agreement attestation that made them eligible for the eight-cent performance-based reimbursement for every lunch served and was also submitted after participation in the program had begun. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Summer Food Service Program While SFAs may operate SFSP, residential and non-residential day camps, units of local, municipal, county or State governments, and private nonprofit organizations may also participate in the program; these providers are called sponsors. Sponsors must submit a written application to CNS by June 15 to participate in the program. Sponsors operate individual sites, and sponsor applications must include site sheets for each site. OSA tested 16 applications from sponsors for participation in SFSP and found: • four applications were revised and the revisions were erroneously applied to prior months, resulting in questioned costs totaling $1,767 for meals served prior to approved revisions; and • eleven applications, including two with more than one error, that were approved with sites that did not meet the eligibility criteria, as follows: o Four sponsors had sites where CNS incorrectly categorized non-residential day camps as open sites, which allowed the site to use the area eligibility determination instead of using individual eligibility determinations, resulting in questioned costs totaling $68,342 for meals served without eligibility information provided. o Two sponsors of camps did not provide the number of eligible children for each session at their sites prior to submitting a CFR, resulting in questioned costs totaling $63,493 for meals served without eligibility information provided. o Three sponsors had four sites that used incorrect school or census data to demonstrate eligibility, resulting in one site that was ineligible for participation, and questioned costs totaling $33,682 for the operation of an ineligible site. o One application was approved with a breakfast time of 11:30 a.m.; there was no documentation to support that this meal was served near the site’s opening time as required by regulations, resulting in questioned costs totaling $8,635 for meals that do meet meal time requirements. o Three applications were approved for non-congregate sites that did not include procedures to ensure duplicate meals would not be distributed. One sponsor had seven open sites with overlapping meal times within a quarter-mile radius. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. In addition, OSA performed analytical procedures over SFSP site classifications and found: • 58 sites from 32 sponsors did not apply eligibility criteria for camp participation, as follows: o 29 sites were classified as open sites or closed enrolled sites when additional information on the application or publicly available information indicated that the program met the definition of camps provided at 7 CFR 225; these sites used area eligibility to claim reimbursement for all meals served instead of only the meals served to eligible children, resulting in questioned costs totaling $208,142. o 9 sites indicated they were camps; however, they were classified as open sites or closed enrolled sites that used area eligibility to claim reimbursement for all meals served instead of only the meals served to eligible children, resulting in questioned costs totaling $100,379. o 13 sites indicated they were camps; however, their applications were not revised to include actual eligibility counts for each session prior to submission of CFRs, resulting in questioned costs totaling $82,567. o 7 sites described camp activities in their description of operations, but classified themselves as open sites or closed enrolled sites that used area eligibility to claim reimbursement for all meals served instead of only the meals served to eligible campers, resulting in questioned costs totaling $48,224. • 16 sponsors had site revisions approved by CNS that added operating days, increased capacities, changed meal types, added meals, or added non-congregate operations to a prior month. CNS permitted sponsors to include those revisions in the prior month’s CFR which were not in accordance with the agreement in place at the time of service, resulting in questioned costs totaling $13,693. Context: CNS processed $55.8 million in CFRs for NSLP, and $2.8 million in CFRs for SFSP in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • CNC participation by ineligible SFAs or sponsors • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that CNS revise policies and procedures to ensure: • SFSP site information sheet revisions prohibit the sponsor from using the revised information in a claim for a prior month; • site classifications appropriately identify camps, consistent with Federal regulations; and • site information sheets contain non-congregate plans that include required information. Additionally, we recommend that CNS enhance oversight to ensure: • all required documents for applications are complete and signed prior to meal service; • session-specific eligibility information is available on the site information sheets for camps; and • the eligibility of the locations of non-congregate sites is properly supported. Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. Procedures for “Application Approvals” will be delineated regarding application and claim revisions, Site classification, non-congregate plan requirements, Eligibility criteria and back up documentation, and all requirement documents will be adequately reviewed. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 (State Number: 24-1203-05)

(2024-030) Title: Internal control over CNC eligibility needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Eligibility Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 10.559 $628,924 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; there is insufficient information on the application to identify programs that may be operating under an incorrect classification. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 7 CFR 210.7 and .9; 7 CFR 225.6, .14, and .16; 7 CFR 245.12 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. 7 CFR 210 outlines the application requirements for participation in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), and specifies that applications shall provide the State agency with sufficient information to determine eligibility. 7 CFR 225 requirements include: • the type of information that must be required in sponsor applications for participation; • sites that serve an area in which poor economic conditions exist or is approved for reimbursement only for meals served free to enrolled children who meet the program's income standards; • the proposed site is not or will not be served in whole or in part by another site; • State agency requirements related to the approval of applications and determinations of eligibility; and • the process and requirements for claims for reimbursement (CFRs). 7 CFR 245 describes the action taken by State agencies related to the eligibility determination of individuals and special eligibility determinations of schools including Provision II and Community Eligible Provision (CEP) schools. These regulations outline how the School Food Authority (SFA) and State agency should collect and report eligibility information in the schools, and how that information should be used in establishing rates and percentages in CFRs. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) includes the School Breakfast Program, NSLP, Special Milk Program for Children, Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) and the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools, residential childcare institutions, and summer food programs; to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools; and to encourage the consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department of Education (DOE) is responsible for the administration of child nutrition programs for the State. DOE provides benefits to each SFA or sponsor on a reimbursement basis. SFAs and sponsors must submit applications for participation in CNC programs and DOE is required to review every application and site information sheet to ensure that only eligible SFAs or sponsors participate in the programs. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 48 applications and found instances that did not align with program regulations for NSLP and SFSP, as follows: National School Lunch Program Applications to participate in child nutrition programs must include attestations and written agreement to the regulations set forth in 7 CFR 210 and 7 CFR 245. Agreements must be signed and returned to Child Nutrition Services (CNS) prior to meal service and the submission of a CFR by the SFA. OSA tested 32 applications from SFAs and sponsors for participation in NSLP and identified six applications that were not complete or were approved prior to participation in the program, as follows: • Three applications were approved for participation with missing information, including: o one application missing an agreement for participation in CEP; o one application not indicating the year of operation; and o one application missing the signature of the SFA superintendent. • Two applications were submitted after participation in the program had begun. • One application was missing the meal pattern agreement attestation that made them eligible for the eight-cent performance-based reimbursement for every lunch served and was also submitted after participation in the program had begun. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Summer Food Service Program While SFAs may operate SFSP, residential and non-residential day camps, units of local, municipal, county or State governments, and private nonprofit organizations may also participate in the program; these providers are called sponsors. Sponsors must submit a written application to CNS by June 15 to participate in the program. Sponsors operate individual sites, and sponsor applications must include site sheets for each site. OSA tested 16 applications from sponsors for participation in SFSP and found: • four applications were revised and the revisions were erroneously applied to prior months, resulting in questioned costs totaling $1,767 for meals served prior to approved revisions; and • eleven applications, including two with more than one error, that were approved with sites that did not meet the eligibility criteria, as follows: o Four sponsors had sites where CNS incorrectly categorized non-residential day camps as open sites, which allowed the site to use the area eligibility determination instead of using individual eligibility determinations, resulting in questioned costs totaling $68,342 for meals served without eligibility information provided. o Two sponsors of camps did not provide the number of eligible children for each session at their sites prior to submitting a CFR, resulting in questioned costs totaling $63,493 for meals served without eligibility information provided. o Three sponsors had four sites that used incorrect school or census data to demonstrate eligibility, resulting in one site that was ineligible for participation, and questioned costs totaling $33,682 for the operation of an ineligible site. o One application was approved with a breakfast time of 11:30 a.m.; there was no documentation to support that this meal was served near the site’s opening time as required by regulations, resulting in questioned costs totaling $8,635 for meals that do meet meal time requirements. o Three applications were approved for non-congregate sites that did not include procedures to ensure duplicate meals would not be distributed. One sponsor had seven open sites with overlapping meal times within a quarter-mile radius. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. In addition, OSA performed analytical procedures over SFSP site classifications and found: • 58 sites from 32 sponsors did not apply eligibility criteria for camp participation, as follows: o 29 sites were classified as open sites or closed enrolled sites when additional information on the application or publicly available information indicated that the program met the definition of camps provided at 7 CFR 225; these sites used area eligibility to claim reimbursement for all meals served instead of only the meals served to eligible children, resulting in questioned costs totaling $208,142. o 9 sites indicated they were camps; however, they were classified as open sites or closed enrolled sites that used area eligibility to claim reimbursement for all meals served instead of only the meals served to eligible children, resulting in questioned costs totaling $100,379. o 13 sites indicated they were camps; however, their applications were not revised to include actual eligibility counts for each session prior to submission of CFRs, resulting in questioned costs totaling $82,567. o 7 sites described camp activities in their description of operations, but classified themselves as open sites or closed enrolled sites that used area eligibility to claim reimbursement for all meals served instead of only the meals served to eligible campers, resulting in questioned costs totaling $48,224. • 16 sponsors had site revisions approved by CNS that added operating days, increased capacities, changed meal types, added meals, or added non-congregate operations to a prior month. CNS permitted sponsors to include those revisions in the prior month’s CFR which were not in accordance with the agreement in place at the time of service, resulting in questioned costs totaling $13,693. Context: CNS processed $55.8 million in CFRs for NSLP, and $2.8 million in CFRs for SFSP in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • CNC participation by ineligible SFAs or sponsors • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that CNS revise policies and procedures to ensure: • SFSP site information sheet revisions prohibit the sponsor from using the revised information in a claim for a prior month; • site classifications appropriately identify camps, consistent with Federal regulations; and • site information sheets contain non-congregate plans that include required information. Additionally, we recommend that CNS enhance oversight to ensure: • all required documents for applications are complete and signed prior to meal service; • session-specific eligibility information is available on the site information sheets for camps; and • the eligibility of the locations of non-congregate sites is properly supported. Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. Procedures for “Application Approvals” will be delineated regarding application and claim revisions, Site classification, non-congregate plan requirements, Eligibility criteria and back up documentation, and all requirement documents will be adequately reviewed. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 (State Number: 24-1203-05)

(2024-030) Title: Internal control over CNC eligibility needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Eligibility Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 10.559 $628,924 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; there is insufficient information on the application to identify programs that may be operating under an incorrect classification. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 7 CFR 210.7 and .9; 7 CFR 225.6, .14, and .16; 7 CFR 245.12 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. 7 CFR 210 outlines the application requirements for participation in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), and specifies that applications shall provide the State agency with sufficient information to determine eligibility. 7 CFR 225 requirements include: • the type of information that must be required in sponsor applications for participation; • sites that serve an area in which poor economic conditions exist or is approved for reimbursement only for meals served free to enrolled children who meet the program's income standards; • the proposed site is not or will not be served in whole or in part by another site; • State agency requirements related to the approval of applications and determinations of eligibility; and • the process and requirements for claims for reimbursement (CFRs). 7 CFR 245 describes the action taken by State agencies related to the eligibility determination of individuals and special eligibility determinations of schools including Provision II and Community Eligible Provision (CEP) schools. These regulations outline how the School Food Authority (SFA) and State agency should collect and report eligibility information in the schools, and how that information should be used in establishing rates and percentages in CFRs. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) includes the School Breakfast Program, NSLP, Special Milk Program for Children, Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) and the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools, residential childcare institutions, and summer food programs; to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools; and to encourage the consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department of Education (DOE) is responsible for the administration of child nutrition programs for the State. DOE provides benefits to each SFA or sponsor on a reimbursement basis. SFAs and sponsors must submit applications for participation in CNC programs and DOE is required to review every application and site information sheet to ensure that only eligible SFAs or sponsors participate in the programs. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 48 applications and found instances that did not align with program regulations for NSLP and SFSP, as follows: National School Lunch Program Applications to participate in child nutrition programs must include attestations and written agreement to the regulations set forth in 7 CFR 210 and 7 CFR 245. Agreements must be signed and returned to Child Nutrition Services (CNS) prior to meal service and the submission of a CFR by the SFA. OSA tested 32 applications from SFAs and sponsors for participation in NSLP and identified six applications that were not complete or were approved prior to participation in the program, as follows: • Three applications were approved for participation with missing information, including: o one application missing an agreement for participation in CEP; o one application not indicating the year of operation; and o one application missing the signature of the SFA superintendent. • Two applications were submitted after participation in the program had begun. • One application was missing the meal pattern agreement attestation that made them eligible for the eight-cent performance-based reimbursement for every lunch served and was also submitted after participation in the program had begun. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Summer Food Service Program While SFAs may operate SFSP, residential and non-residential day camps, units of local, municipal, county or State governments, and private nonprofit organizations may also participate in the program; these providers are called sponsors. Sponsors must submit a written application to CNS by June 15 to participate in the program. Sponsors operate individual sites, and sponsor applications must include site sheets for each site. OSA tested 16 applications from sponsors for participation in SFSP and found: • four applications were revised and the revisions were erroneously applied to prior months, resulting in questioned costs totaling $1,767 for meals served prior to approved revisions; and • eleven applications, including two with more than one error, that were approved with sites that did not meet the eligibility criteria, as follows: o Four sponsors had sites where CNS incorrectly categorized non-residential day camps as open sites, which allowed the site to use the area eligibility determination instead of using individual eligibility determinations, resulting in questioned costs totaling $68,342 for meals served without eligibility information provided. o Two sponsors of camps did not provide the number of eligible children for each session at their sites prior to submitting a CFR, resulting in questioned costs totaling $63,493 for meals served without eligibility information provided. o Three sponsors had four sites that used incorrect school or census data to demonstrate eligibility, resulting in one site that was ineligible for participation, and questioned costs totaling $33,682 for the operation of an ineligible site. o One application was approved with a breakfast time of 11:30 a.m.; there was no documentation to support that this meal was served near the site’s opening time as required by regulations, resulting in questioned costs totaling $8,635 for meals that do meet meal time requirements. o Three applications were approved for non-congregate sites that did not include procedures to ensure duplicate meals would not be distributed. One sponsor had seven open sites with overlapping meal times within a quarter-mile radius. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. In addition, OSA performed analytical procedures over SFSP site classifications and found: • 58 sites from 32 sponsors did not apply eligibility criteria for camp participation, as follows: o 29 sites were classified as open sites or closed enrolled sites when additional information on the application or publicly available information indicated that the program met the definition of camps provided at 7 CFR 225; these sites used area eligibility to claim reimbursement for all meals served instead of only the meals served to eligible children, resulting in questioned costs totaling $208,142. o 9 sites indicated they were camps; however, they were classified as open sites or closed enrolled sites that used area eligibility to claim reimbursement for all meals served instead of only the meals served to eligible children, resulting in questioned costs totaling $100,379. o 13 sites indicated they were camps; however, their applications were not revised to include actual eligibility counts for each session prior to submission of CFRs, resulting in questioned costs totaling $82,567. o 7 sites described camp activities in their description of operations, but classified themselves as open sites or closed enrolled sites that used area eligibility to claim reimbursement for all meals served instead of only the meals served to eligible campers, resulting in questioned costs totaling $48,224. • 16 sponsors had site revisions approved by CNS that added operating days, increased capacities, changed meal types, added meals, or added non-congregate operations to a prior month. CNS permitted sponsors to include those revisions in the prior month’s CFR which were not in accordance with the agreement in place at the time of service, resulting in questioned costs totaling $13,693. Context: CNS processed $55.8 million in CFRs for NSLP, and $2.8 million in CFRs for SFSP in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • CNC participation by ineligible SFAs or sponsors • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that CNS revise policies and procedures to ensure: • SFSP site information sheet revisions prohibit the sponsor from using the revised information in a claim for a prior month; • site classifications appropriately identify camps, consistent with Federal regulations; and • site information sheets contain non-congregate plans that include required information. Additionally, we recommend that CNS enhance oversight to ensure: • all required documents for applications are complete and signed prior to meal service; • session-specific eligibility information is available on the site information sheets for camps; and • the eligibility of the locations of non-congregate sites is properly supported. Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. Procedures for “Application Approvals” will be delineated regarding application and claim revisions, Site classification, non-congregate plan requirements, Eligibility criteria and back up documentation, and all requirement documents will be adequately reviewed. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 (State Number: 24-1203-05)

(2024-031) Title: Internal control over CNC claim reimbursements needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Reporting Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 10.555 $1,605 ALN 10.582 $9,535 ALN 10.559 $117,259 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; due to the variety of site types in the test population and varied meal claim counts, an error rate cannot be applied to the population and a projection of questioned costs cannot be reasonably estimated. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 7 CFR 210.7 and .8; 7 CFR 225.6, .9, and .16; Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, Section 19; U.S. Department of Agriculture Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Handbook The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. 7 CFR 210.7 National School Lunch Program (NSLP) claims for reimbursement (CFRs) must be based on lunch counts taken daily at the point of service (POS), which correctly identify the number of free, reduced price, and paid lunches served to eligible children. 7 CFR 210.8 (NSLP) on a monthly basis, the State agency shall, at a minimum, compare the number of free and reduced price lunches claimed to the number of children approved for free and reduced price lunches enrolled in the School Food Authority (SFA) for the month of October, and multiply that number by the days of operation and the attendance factor employed by the SFA. At its discretion, the State agency may conduct this comparison against data which reflects the number of children approved for free and reduced price lunches for a more current month(s). 7 CFR 225.6 Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) required information must be on a site information sheet that the State agency must provide to the sponsor for approval by the State agency prior to participation in SFSP, including estimated meal counts, types of meals, meal service times, and procedures to ensure duplicate meals are not distributed at non-congregate sites. In order to approve a site, the area where the site proposes to serve is not or will not be served in whole or in part by another site. 7 CFR 225.9 (SFSP) outlines that payments to a sponsor must equal the amount derived by multiplying the number of eligible meals, by type, actually served under the sponsor's program to eligible children by the current applicable reimbursement rate for each meal type. Sponsors must be eligible to receive additional reimbursement for each meal served to participating children at rural or self-preparation sites. 7 CFR 225.16 (SFSP) meals served outside of the meal time listed on the sponsor’s application are not eligible for reimbursement. Sponsors agree in writing to claim reimbursement only for the types of meals specified in the agreement that are served. Section 19 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA) states that the per-pupil grant provided to a school under the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP) shall be not less than $50, nor more than $75. U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) FFVP Handbook, referenced as guidance in Policy Memo SP 17-2023, states that all nonfood costs must be carefully reviewed and deemed reasonable. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) includes the School Breakfast Program, NSLP, Special Milk Program for Children, SFSP and FFVP. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools, residential childcare institutions and summer food programs; to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools; and to encourage the consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department of Education (DOE) is responsible for the administration of child nutrition programs for the State. DOE provides benefits to each SFA or sponsor on a reimbursement basis. SFAs and sponsors must submit claims for reimbursement based on actual meals served for the month and permissible fresh fruits and vegetables utilizing the Child Nutrition Program (CNPWeb) system. The Department is required to review each SFA’s or sponsor’s CFR to ensure that monthly claims are limited to the number of meals served to eligible children and that the cost of the fresh fruits and vegetables are allowable. Once the claims are approved, claims are reimbursed based on the rates that are programmed in the CNPWeb system. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested CFRs for the CNC and found instances that did not align with program regulations for NSLP, FFVP, and SFSP, as follows: National School Lunch Program CNS must perform procedures as outlined in Federal regulations, including a review of CFRs on a monthly basis through analysis utilizing a product of the enrollment information from the month of October multiplied by the days of operation and the attendance factor employed by the SFA. OSA procedures identified that CNS did not review or perform analysis on CFRs on a monthly basis as required. OSA tested 60 CFRs and identified nine CFRs from five SFAs where eligibility information entered on the CFR varied significantly from the information provided and verified by the SFA in October 2023. In order to verify the allowability of the claims identified, OSA requested supporting documentation from those five SFAs. OSA compared the eligibility counts from the CFR, the SFA’s POS reports, the SFA’s October data provided to CNS, and the SFA’s master list of eligible students for the month of the CFR and found: • five POS reports with eligibility counts that conflicted with the master eligibility list provided by the SFA for that month, and with the number of eligible children reported on the CFR, resulting in questioned costs totaling $897; • one POS report from October with eligibility counts that matched the site CFR, but did not match the master eligibility list provided by the SFA, or the data reported to CNS by the SFA for the same month, resulting in questioned costs totaling $708; and • documentation for three CFRs could not be provided. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program CNS ensures compliance with Federal regulations through the annual administrative review process. OSA tested 17 FFVP CFRs from the nine SFAs who had an administrative review in fiscal year 2024 and found: • nine claims from five SFAs had sites with nonfood costs that were not reviewed during the administrative review process. • for six of the nine SFAs, portions of the administrative review process were erroneously omitted; therefore, CNS did not review or examine the allowability for any FFVP CFRs for those six SFAs. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. The FFVP fiscal year is October 1 to September 30; therefore, though schools may begin the school year with unspent funds from the prior school year, these funds must be spent by September 30. OSA tested 19 FFVP SFAs that participated in both fiscal year 2023 and 2024 and found that three SFAs exceeded their fiscal year 2023 allocation in September 2023. CNS did not detect or correct this allocation issue until OSA inquired in September 2024. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Section 19 of the Richard B. Russell NSLA requires that FFVP allocations made by CNS result in a per-pupil grant not less than $50, nor more than $75 to participating SFAs. OSA tested 19 SFAs that participated in FFVP in fiscal year 2024 and found that 14 SFAs had manual allocation adjustments which resulted in ten per-pupil allocations that were not between $50 and $75 per pupil, ranging from $24 per pupil to $109 per pupil. The allocation of funds over $75 per pupil resulted in questioned costs of $9,535. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Summer Food Service Program CNS requires applications from sponsors that include individual site sheets. The information on the sheet must include the estimated number of meals, types of meals to be served, and meal service times. Meal service times must align with the approved application at the time the meals are served. Non-congregate sites must provide enough detail to ensure the area where the site proposes to serve meets certain criteria, including verification that the site: • is rural; • is not or will not be served in whole or in part by another site; • serves an area in which poor economic conditions exist or is approved for reimbursement only for meals served free to enrolled children who meet income standards; and • has procedures to ensure that duplicate meals are not served to any child. Residential and non-residential camps must include in their site sheets the number of children enrolled in each session who meet income standards prior to filing the camp’s CFR for each session. OSA tested 39 SFSP CFRs and found: • nine residential or non-residential camp CFRs that did not include the number of children enrolled in each session who met income standards prior to filing their CFR, resulting in questioned costs totaling $95,902. • two CFRs to non-congregate sites not located in an area where poor economic conditions exist per USDA data. The ineligible sites resulted in questioned costs totaling $15,536. • four CFRs included revised information from the site sheet that did not reflect the conditions at the time the meals were served. The revisions submitted between the meal service and submission of the CFR included an increase in capacity, an addition of meal types, and an addition of operating days, resulting in questioned costs totaling $5,821. • five CFRs to non-congregate sites that did not have documented procedures to prevent duplicate meal service on the site sheet. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Additionally, SFSP has two tiers of administrative rates for reimbursement, self-prep and vended. Sites classified as rural are all reimbursed at the highest rate, but sites classified as urban can either be reimbursed at the higher rate if they serve self-prep meals, or at the lower rate if their meals are vended. CNS previously determined that the field on the application for the sponsor to select whether the meal served is vended or self-prep is not required in the CNPWeb system. At that time, CNS submitted a ticket to request a change to the CNPWeb system to require the sponsor to select a meal type in that field on future applications; however, because that information was not required previously, CNS does not have assurance that urban sites that did not select self-prep or vended are being reimbursed at the correct rate. Furthermore, for each month of operation, CNS must report the number of meals served by meal type and sponsor type to USDA Food Nutrition Services (FNS) on the FNS-418 report. CNS does not have assurance that their default classification of urban sites as self-prep when the field was left blank is accurate for FNS-418 reporting. Context: In fiscal year 2024, CNS processed CFRs totaling: • $55.8 million under NSLP; • $2.8 million under FFVP; and • $2.8 million under SFSP. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Potential incorrect rates of reimbursement paid to SFAs and sponsors • Inaccurate FNS-418 reports submitted to FNS Recommendation: We recommend that CNS enhance policies and procedures to: • require a review of CFRs on a monthly basis in accordance with Federal regulations; • ensure all required information is included in the applications and approved prior to participation; • review and approve area eligibility for non-congregate sites; • require inclusion of self-prep or vended meal types and non-congregate plans on site information sheets that document procedures to prevent duplicate meal service; • ensure session-specific eligibility information is received prior to claim approval for camp sites; and • ensure that site information sheet revisions prohibit the sponsor from using the revised information in a claim for the prior month. In addition, we recommend that CNS enhance oversight over FFVP to ensure: • claims with nonfood costs are reasonable; • allocation amounts remain within $50 to $75 per pupil; and • administrative reviews conducted by CNS include FFVP allowability reviews. Corrective Action Plan: See F-16 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. These findings come from various programs and are correctly outlined in the Condition. However, the Department disagrees with the first bullet in the Recommendation regarding the review of CFRs monthly and has contacted the Northeast Regional Office of the USDA for clarification. Additionally, we disagree with the first bullet point regarding non-food costs in the FFVP program, as it’s addressed in the Administrative Review process. The Department has developed a corrective action plan to address the remaining recommendations. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: 7 CFR 210.8(b)(2) provides detailed requirements outlining the minimum CFR monthly claim review procedures that CNS must perform. CNS has not implemented required procedures, and erroneous CFRs are not detected or corrected, resulting in questioned costs and potential disallowances. In addition, CNS asserts that FFVP nonfood costs are addressed as part of the Administrative Review process; however, OSA identified a material weakness and material noncompliance as issued in finding 2024-032 Internal control over CNC subrecipient monitoring procedures needs improvement. The finding reports that six of the nine Administrative Reviews tested for FFVP inappropriately omitted Federally required steps and that a cost analysis over nonfood costs was not performed. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1203-02)

(2024-031) Title: Internal control over CNC claim reimbursements needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Reporting Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 10.555 $1,605 ALN 10.582 $9,535 ALN 10.559 $117,259 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; due to the variety of site types in the test population and varied meal claim counts, an error rate cannot be applied to the population and a projection of questioned costs cannot be reasonably estimated. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 7 CFR 210.7 and .8; 7 CFR 225.6, .9, and .16; Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, Section 19; U.S. Department of Agriculture Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Handbook The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. 7 CFR 210.7 National School Lunch Program (NSLP) claims for reimbursement (CFRs) must be based on lunch counts taken daily at the point of service (POS), which correctly identify the number of free, reduced price, and paid lunches served to eligible children. 7 CFR 210.8 (NSLP) on a monthly basis, the State agency shall, at a minimum, compare the number of free and reduced price lunches claimed to the number of children approved for free and reduced price lunches enrolled in the School Food Authority (SFA) for the month of October, and multiply that number by the days of operation and the attendance factor employed by the SFA. At its discretion, the State agency may conduct this comparison against data which reflects the number of children approved for free and reduced price lunches for a more current month(s). 7 CFR 225.6 Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) required information must be on a site information sheet that the State agency must provide to the sponsor for approval by the State agency prior to participation in SFSP, including estimated meal counts, types of meals, meal service times, and procedures to ensure duplicate meals are not distributed at non-congregate sites. In order to approve a site, the area where the site proposes to serve is not or will not be served in whole or in part by another site. 7 CFR 225.9 (SFSP) outlines that payments to a sponsor must equal the amount derived by multiplying the number of eligible meals, by type, actually served under the sponsor's program to eligible children by the current applicable reimbursement rate for each meal type. Sponsors must be eligible to receive additional reimbursement for each meal served to participating children at rural or self-preparation sites. 7 CFR 225.16 (SFSP) meals served outside of the meal time listed on the sponsor’s application are not eligible for reimbursement. Sponsors agree in writing to claim reimbursement only for the types of meals specified in the agreement that are served. Section 19 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA) states that the per-pupil grant provided to a school under the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP) shall be not less than $50, nor more than $75. U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) FFVP Handbook, referenced as guidance in Policy Memo SP 17-2023, states that all nonfood costs must be carefully reviewed and deemed reasonable. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) includes the School Breakfast Program, NSLP, Special Milk Program for Children, SFSP and FFVP. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools, residential childcare institutions and summer food programs; to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools; and to encourage the consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department of Education (DOE) is responsible for the administration of child nutrition programs for the State. DOE provides benefits to each SFA or sponsor on a reimbursement basis. SFAs and sponsors must submit claims for reimbursement based on actual meals served for the month and permissible fresh fruits and vegetables utilizing the Child Nutrition Program (CNPWeb) system. The Department is required to review each SFA’s or sponsor’s CFR to ensure that monthly claims are limited to the number of meals served to eligible children and that the cost of the fresh fruits and vegetables are allowable. Once the claims are approved, claims are reimbursed based on the rates that are programmed in the CNPWeb system. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested CFRs for the CNC and found instances that did not align with program regulations for NSLP, FFVP, and SFSP, as follows: National School Lunch Program CNS must perform procedures as outlined in Federal regulations, including a review of CFRs on a monthly basis through analysis utilizing a product of the enrollment information from the month of October multiplied by the days of operation and the attendance factor employed by the SFA. OSA procedures identified that CNS did not review or perform analysis on CFRs on a monthly basis as required. OSA tested 60 CFRs and identified nine CFRs from five SFAs where eligibility information entered on the CFR varied significantly from the information provided and verified by the SFA in October 2023. In order to verify the allowability of the claims identified, OSA requested supporting documentation from those five SFAs. OSA compared the eligibility counts from the CFR, the SFA’s POS reports, the SFA’s October data provided to CNS, and the SFA’s master list of eligible students for the month of the CFR and found: • five POS reports with eligibility counts that conflicted with the master eligibility list provided by the SFA for that month, and with the number of eligible children reported on the CFR, resulting in questioned costs totaling $897; • one POS report from October with eligibility counts that matched the site CFR, but did not match the master eligibility list provided by the SFA, or the data reported to CNS by the SFA for the same month, resulting in questioned costs totaling $708; and • documentation for three CFRs could not be provided. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program CNS ensures compliance with Federal regulations through the annual administrative review process. OSA tested 17 FFVP CFRs from the nine SFAs who had an administrative review in fiscal year 2024 and found: • nine claims from five SFAs had sites with nonfood costs that were not reviewed during the administrative review process. • for six of the nine SFAs, portions of the administrative review process were erroneously omitted; therefore, CNS did not review or examine the allowability for any FFVP CFRs for those six SFAs. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. The FFVP fiscal year is October 1 to September 30; therefore, though schools may begin the school year with unspent funds from the prior school year, these funds must be spent by September 30. OSA tested 19 FFVP SFAs that participated in both fiscal year 2023 and 2024 and found that three SFAs exceeded their fiscal year 2023 allocation in September 2023. CNS did not detect or correct this allocation issue until OSA inquired in September 2024. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Section 19 of the Richard B. Russell NSLA requires that FFVP allocations made by CNS result in a per-pupil grant not less than $50, nor more than $75 to participating SFAs. OSA tested 19 SFAs that participated in FFVP in fiscal year 2024 and found that 14 SFAs had manual allocation adjustments which resulted in ten per-pupil allocations that were not between $50 and $75 per pupil, ranging from $24 per pupil to $109 per pupil. The allocation of funds over $75 per pupil resulted in questioned costs of $9,535. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Summer Food Service Program CNS requires applications from sponsors that include individual site sheets. The information on the sheet must include the estimated number of meals, types of meals to be served, and meal service times. Meal service times must align with the approved application at the time the meals are served. Non-congregate sites must provide enough detail to ensure the area where the site proposes to serve meets certain criteria, including verification that the site: • is rural; • is not or will not be served in whole or in part by another site; • serves an area in which poor economic conditions exist or is approved for reimbursement only for meals served free to enrolled children who meet income standards; and • has procedures to ensure that duplicate meals are not served to any child. Residential and non-residential camps must include in their site sheets the number of children enrolled in each session who meet income standards prior to filing the camp’s CFR for each session. OSA tested 39 SFSP CFRs and found: • nine residential or non-residential camp CFRs that did not include the number of children enrolled in each session who met income standards prior to filing their CFR, resulting in questioned costs totaling $95,902. • two CFRs to non-congregate sites not located in an area where poor economic conditions exist per USDA data. The ineligible sites resulted in questioned costs totaling $15,536. • four CFRs included revised information from the site sheet that did not reflect the conditions at the time the meals were served. The revisions submitted between the meal service and submission of the CFR included an increase in capacity, an addition of meal types, and an addition of operating days, resulting in questioned costs totaling $5,821. • five CFRs to non-congregate sites that did not have documented procedures to prevent duplicate meal service on the site sheet. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Additionally, SFSP has two tiers of administrative rates for reimbursement, self-prep and vended. Sites classified as rural are all reimbursed at the highest rate, but sites classified as urban can either be reimbursed at the higher rate if they serve self-prep meals, or at the lower rate if their meals are vended. CNS previously determined that the field on the application for the sponsor to select whether the meal served is vended or self-prep is not required in the CNPWeb system. At that time, CNS submitted a ticket to request a change to the CNPWeb system to require the sponsor to select a meal type in that field on future applications; however, because that information was not required previously, CNS does not have assurance that urban sites that did not select self-prep or vended are being reimbursed at the correct rate. Furthermore, for each month of operation, CNS must report the number of meals served by meal type and sponsor type to USDA Food Nutrition Services (FNS) on the FNS-418 report. CNS does not have assurance that their default classification of urban sites as self-prep when the field was left blank is accurate for FNS-418 reporting. Context: In fiscal year 2024, CNS processed CFRs totaling: • $55.8 million under NSLP; • $2.8 million under FFVP; and • $2.8 million under SFSP. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Potential incorrect rates of reimbursement paid to SFAs and sponsors • Inaccurate FNS-418 reports submitted to FNS Recommendation: We recommend that CNS enhance policies and procedures to: • require a review of CFRs on a monthly basis in accordance with Federal regulations; • ensure all required information is included in the applications and approved prior to participation; • review and approve area eligibility for non-congregate sites; • require inclusion of self-prep or vended meal types and non-congregate plans on site information sheets that document procedures to prevent duplicate meal service; • ensure session-specific eligibility information is received prior to claim approval for camp sites; and • ensure that site information sheet revisions prohibit the sponsor from using the revised information in a claim for the prior month. In addition, we recommend that CNS enhance oversight over FFVP to ensure: • claims with nonfood costs are reasonable; • allocation amounts remain within $50 to $75 per pupil; and • administrative reviews conducted by CNS include FFVP allowability reviews. Corrective Action Plan: See F-16 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. These findings come from various programs and are correctly outlined in the Condition. However, the Department disagrees with the first bullet in the Recommendation regarding the review of CFRs monthly and has contacted the Northeast Regional Office of the USDA for clarification. Additionally, we disagree with the first bullet point regarding non-food costs in the FFVP program, as it’s addressed in the Administrative Review process. The Department has developed a corrective action plan to address the remaining recommendations. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: 7 CFR 210.8(b)(2) provides detailed requirements outlining the minimum CFR monthly claim review procedures that CNS must perform. CNS has not implemented required procedures, and erroneous CFRs are not detected or corrected, resulting in questioned costs and potential disallowances. In addition, CNS asserts that FFVP nonfood costs are addressed as part of the Administrative Review process; however, OSA identified a material weakness and material noncompliance as issued in finding 2024-032 Internal control over CNC subrecipient monitoring procedures needs improvement. The finding reports that six of the nine Administrative Reviews tested for FFVP inappropriately omitted Federally required steps and that a cost analysis over nonfood costs was not performed. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1203-02)

(2024-031) Title: Internal control over CNC claim reimbursements needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Reporting Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 10.555 $1,605 ALN 10.582 $9,535 ALN 10.559 $117,259 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; due to the variety of site types in the test population and varied meal claim counts, an error rate cannot be applied to the population and a projection of questioned costs cannot be reasonably estimated. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 7 CFR 210.7 and .8; 7 CFR 225.6, .9, and .16; Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, Section 19; U.S. Department of Agriculture Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Handbook The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. 7 CFR 210.7 National School Lunch Program (NSLP) claims for reimbursement (CFRs) must be based on lunch counts taken daily at the point of service (POS), which correctly identify the number of free, reduced price, and paid lunches served to eligible children. 7 CFR 210.8 (NSLP) on a monthly basis, the State agency shall, at a minimum, compare the number of free and reduced price lunches claimed to the number of children approved for free and reduced price lunches enrolled in the School Food Authority (SFA) for the month of October, and multiply that number by the days of operation and the attendance factor employed by the SFA. At its discretion, the State agency may conduct this comparison against data which reflects the number of children approved for free and reduced price lunches for a more current month(s). 7 CFR 225.6 Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) required information must be on a site information sheet that the State agency must provide to the sponsor for approval by the State agency prior to participation in SFSP, including estimated meal counts, types of meals, meal service times, and procedures to ensure duplicate meals are not distributed at non-congregate sites. In order to approve a site, the area where the site proposes to serve is not or will not be served in whole or in part by another site. 7 CFR 225.9 (SFSP) outlines that payments to a sponsor must equal the amount derived by multiplying the number of eligible meals, by type, actually served under the sponsor's program to eligible children by the current applicable reimbursement rate for each meal type. Sponsors must be eligible to receive additional reimbursement for each meal served to participating children at rural or self-preparation sites. 7 CFR 225.16 (SFSP) meals served outside of the meal time listed on the sponsor’s application are not eligible for reimbursement. Sponsors agree in writing to claim reimbursement only for the types of meals specified in the agreement that are served. Section 19 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA) states that the per-pupil grant provided to a school under the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP) shall be not less than $50, nor more than $75. U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) FFVP Handbook, referenced as guidance in Policy Memo SP 17-2023, states that all nonfood costs must be carefully reviewed and deemed reasonable. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) includes the School Breakfast Program, NSLP, Special Milk Program for Children, SFSP and FFVP. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools, residential childcare institutions and summer food programs; to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools; and to encourage the consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department of Education (DOE) is responsible for the administration of child nutrition programs for the State. DOE provides benefits to each SFA or sponsor on a reimbursement basis. SFAs and sponsors must submit claims for reimbursement based on actual meals served for the month and permissible fresh fruits and vegetables utilizing the Child Nutrition Program (CNPWeb) system. The Department is required to review each SFA’s or sponsor’s CFR to ensure that monthly claims are limited to the number of meals served to eligible children and that the cost of the fresh fruits and vegetables are allowable. Once the claims are approved, claims are reimbursed based on the rates that are programmed in the CNPWeb system. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested CFRs for the CNC and found instances that did not align with program regulations for NSLP, FFVP, and SFSP, as follows: National School Lunch Program CNS must perform procedures as outlined in Federal regulations, including a review of CFRs on a monthly basis through analysis utilizing a product of the enrollment information from the month of October multiplied by the days of operation and the attendance factor employed by the SFA. OSA procedures identified that CNS did not review or perform analysis on CFRs on a monthly basis as required. OSA tested 60 CFRs and identified nine CFRs from five SFAs where eligibility information entered on the CFR varied significantly from the information provided and verified by the SFA in October 2023. In order to verify the allowability of the claims identified, OSA requested supporting documentation from those five SFAs. OSA compared the eligibility counts from the CFR, the SFA’s POS reports, the SFA’s October data provided to CNS, and the SFA’s master list of eligible students for the month of the CFR and found: • five POS reports with eligibility counts that conflicted with the master eligibility list provided by the SFA for that month, and with the number of eligible children reported on the CFR, resulting in questioned costs totaling $897; • one POS report from October with eligibility counts that matched the site CFR, but did not match the master eligibility list provided by the SFA, or the data reported to CNS by the SFA for the same month, resulting in questioned costs totaling $708; and • documentation for three CFRs could not be provided. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program CNS ensures compliance with Federal regulations through the annual administrative review process. OSA tested 17 FFVP CFRs from the nine SFAs who had an administrative review in fiscal year 2024 and found: • nine claims from five SFAs had sites with nonfood costs that were not reviewed during the administrative review process. • for six of the nine SFAs, portions of the administrative review process were erroneously omitted; therefore, CNS did not review or examine the allowability for any FFVP CFRs for those six SFAs. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. The FFVP fiscal year is October 1 to September 30; therefore, though schools may begin the school year with unspent funds from the prior school year, these funds must be spent by September 30. OSA tested 19 FFVP SFAs that participated in both fiscal year 2023 and 2024 and found that three SFAs exceeded their fiscal year 2023 allocation in September 2023. CNS did not detect or correct this allocation issue until OSA inquired in September 2024. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Section 19 of the Richard B. Russell NSLA requires that FFVP allocations made by CNS result in a per-pupil grant not less than $50, nor more than $75 to participating SFAs. OSA tested 19 SFAs that participated in FFVP in fiscal year 2024 and found that 14 SFAs had manual allocation adjustments which resulted in ten per-pupil allocations that were not between $50 and $75 per pupil, ranging from $24 per pupil to $109 per pupil. The allocation of funds over $75 per pupil resulted in questioned costs of $9,535. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Summer Food Service Program CNS requires applications from sponsors that include individual site sheets. The information on the sheet must include the estimated number of meals, types of meals to be served, and meal service times. Meal service times must align with the approved application at the time the meals are served. Non-congregate sites must provide enough detail to ensure the area where the site proposes to serve meets certain criteria, including verification that the site: • is rural; • is not or will not be served in whole or in part by another site; • serves an area in which poor economic conditions exist or is approved for reimbursement only for meals served free to enrolled children who meet income standards; and • has procedures to ensure that duplicate meals are not served to any child. Residential and non-residential camps must include in their site sheets the number of children enrolled in each session who meet income standards prior to filing the camp’s CFR for each session. OSA tested 39 SFSP CFRs and found: • nine residential or non-residential camp CFRs that did not include the number of children enrolled in each session who met income standards prior to filing their CFR, resulting in questioned costs totaling $95,902. • two CFRs to non-congregate sites not located in an area where poor economic conditions exist per USDA data. The ineligible sites resulted in questioned costs totaling $15,536. • four CFRs included revised information from the site sheet that did not reflect the conditions at the time the meals were served. The revisions submitted between the meal service and submission of the CFR included an increase in capacity, an addition of meal types, and an addition of operating days, resulting in questioned costs totaling $5,821. • five CFRs to non-congregate sites that did not have documented procedures to prevent duplicate meal service on the site sheet. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Additionally, SFSP has two tiers of administrative rates for reimbursement, self-prep and vended. Sites classified as rural are all reimbursed at the highest rate, but sites classified as urban can either be reimbursed at the higher rate if they serve self-prep meals, or at the lower rate if their meals are vended. CNS previously determined that the field on the application for the sponsor to select whether the meal served is vended or self-prep is not required in the CNPWeb system. At that time, CNS submitted a ticket to request a change to the CNPWeb system to require the sponsor to select a meal type in that field on future applications; however, because that information was not required previously, CNS does not have assurance that urban sites that did not select self-prep or vended are being reimbursed at the correct rate. Furthermore, for each month of operation, CNS must report the number of meals served by meal type and sponsor type to USDA Food Nutrition Services (FNS) on the FNS-418 report. CNS does not have assurance that their default classification of urban sites as self-prep when the field was left blank is accurate for FNS-418 reporting. Context: In fiscal year 2024, CNS processed CFRs totaling: • $55.8 million under NSLP; • $2.8 million under FFVP; and • $2.8 million under SFSP. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Potential incorrect rates of reimbursement paid to SFAs and sponsors • Inaccurate FNS-418 reports submitted to FNS Recommendation: We recommend that CNS enhance policies and procedures to: • require a review of CFRs on a monthly basis in accordance with Federal regulations; • ensure all required information is included in the applications and approved prior to participation; • review and approve area eligibility for non-congregate sites; • require inclusion of self-prep or vended meal types and non-congregate plans on site information sheets that document procedures to prevent duplicate meal service; • ensure session-specific eligibility information is received prior to claim approval for camp sites; and • ensure that site information sheet revisions prohibit the sponsor from using the revised information in a claim for the prior month. In addition, we recommend that CNS enhance oversight over FFVP to ensure: • claims with nonfood costs are reasonable; • allocation amounts remain within $50 to $75 per pupil; and • administrative reviews conducted by CNS include FFVP allowability reviews. Corrective Action Plan: See F-16 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. These findings come from various programs and are correctly outlined in the Condition. However, the Department disagrees with the first bullet in the Recommendation regarding the review of CFRs monthly and has contacted the Northeast Regional Office of the USDA for clarification. Additionally, we disagree with the first bullet point regarding non-food costs in the FFVP program, as it’s addressed in the Administrative Review process. The Department has developed a corrective action plan to address the remaining recommendations. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: 7 CFR 210.8(b)(2) provides detailed requirements outlining the minimum CFR monthly claim review procedures that CNS must perform. CNS has not implemented required procedures, and erroneous CFRs are not detected or corrected, resulting in questioned costs and potential disallowances. In addition, CNS asserts that FFVP nonfood costs are addressed as part of the Administrative Review process; however, OSA identified a material weakness and material noncompliance as issued in finding 2024-032 Internal control over CNC subrecipient monitoring procedures needs improvement. The finding reports that six of the nine Administrative Reviews tested for FFVP inappropriately omitted Federally required steps and that a cost analysis over nonfood costs was not performed. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1203-02)

(2024-031) Title: Internal control over CNC claim reimbursements needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Reporting Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 10.555 $1,605 ALN 10.582 $9,535 ALN 10.559 $117,259 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; due to the variety of site types in the test population and varied meal claim counts, an error rate cannot be applied to the population and a projection of questioned costs cannot be reasonably estimated. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 7 CFR 210.7 and .8; 7 CFR 225.6, .9, and .16; Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, Section 19; U.S. Department of Agriculture Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Handbook The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. 7 CFR 210.7 National School Lunch Program (NSLP) claims for reimbursement (CFRs) must be based on lunch counts taken daily at the point of service (POS), which correctly identify the number of free, reduced price, and paid lunches served to eligible children. 7 CFR 210.8 (NSLP) on a monthly basis, the State agency shall, at a minimum, compare the number of free and reduced price lunches claimed to the number of children approved for free and reduced price lunches enrolled in the School Food Authority (SFA) for the month of October, and multiply that number by the days of operation and the attendance factor employed by the SFA. At its discretion, the State agency may conduct this comparison against data which reflects the number of children approved for free and reduced price lunches for a more current month(s). 7 CFR 225.6 Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) required information must be on a site information sheet that the State agency must provide to the sponsor for approval by the State agency prior to participation in SFSP, including estimated meal counts, types of meals, meal service times, and procedures to ensure duplicate meals are not distributed at non-congregate sites. In order to approve a site, the area where the site proposes to serve is not or will not be served in whole or in part by another site. 7 CFR 225.9 (SFSP) outlines that payments to a sponsor must equal the amount derived by multiplying the number of eligible meals, by type, actually served under the sponsor's program to eligible children by the current applicable reimbursement rate for each meal type. Sponsors must be eligible to receive additional reimbursement for each meal served to participating children at rural or self-preparation sites. 7 CFR 225.16 (SFSP) meals served outside of the meal time listed on the sponsor’s application are not eligible for reimbursement. Sponsors agree in writing to claim reimbursement only for the types of meals specified in the agreement that are served. Section 19 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA) states that the per-pupil grant provided to a school under the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP) shall be not less than $50, nor more than $75. U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) FFVP Handbook, referenced as guidance in Policy Memo SP 17-2023, states that all nonfood costs must be carefully reviewed and deemed reasonable. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) includes the School Breakfast Program, NSLP, Special Milk Program for Children, SFSP and FFVP. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools, residential childcare institutions and summer food programs; to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools; and to encourage the consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department of Education (DOE) is responsible for the administration of child nutrition programs for the State. DOE provides benefits to each SFA or sponsor on a reimbursement basis. SFAs and sponsors must submit claims for reimbursement based on actual meals served for the month and permissible fresh fruits and vegetables utilizing the Child Nutrition Program (CNPWeb) system. The Department is required to review each SFA’s or sponsor’s CFR to ensure that monthly claims are limited to the number of meals served to eligible children and that the cost of the fresh fruits and vegetables are allowable. Once the claims are approved, claims are reimbursed based on the rates that are programmed in the CNPWeb system. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested CFRs for the CNC and found instances that did not align with program regulations for NSLP, FFVP, and SFSP, as follows: National School Lunch Program CNS must perform procedures as outlined in Federal regulations, including a review of CFRs on a monthly basis through analysis utilizing a product of the enrollment information from the month of October multiplied by the days of operation and the attendance factor employed by the SFA. OSA procedures identified that CNS did not review or perform analysis on CFRs on a monthly basis as required. OSA tested 60 CFRs and identified nine CFRs from five SFAs where eligibility information entered on the CFR varied significantly from the information provided and verified by the SFA in October 2023. In order to verify the allowability of the claims identified, OSA requested supporting documentation from those five SFAs. OSA compared the eligibility counts from the CFR, the SFA’s POS reports, the SFA’s October data provided to CNS, and the SFA’s master list of eligible students for the month of the CFR and found: • five POS reports with eligibility counts that conflicted with the master eligibility list provided by the SFA for that month, and with the number of eligible children reported on the CFR, resulting in questioned costs totaling $897; • one POS report from October with eligibility counts that matched the site CFR, but did not match the master eligibility list provided by the SFA, or the data reported to CNS by the SFA for the same month, resulting in questioned costs totaling $708; and • documentation for three CFRs could not be provided. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program CNS ensures compliance with Federal regulations through the annual administrative review process. OSA tested 17 FFVP CFRs from the nine SFAs who had an administrative review in fiscal year 2024 and found: • nine claims from five SFAs had sites with nonfood costs that were not reviewed during the administrative review process. • for six of the nine SFAs, portions of the administrative review process were erroneously omitted; therefore, CNS did not review or examine the allowability for any FFVP CFRs for those six SFAs. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. The FFVP fiscal year is October 1 to September 30; therefore, though schools may begin the school year with unspent funds from the prior school year, these funds must be spent by September 30. OSA tested 19 FFVP SFAs that participated in both fiscal year 2023 and 2024 and found that three SFAs exceeded their fiscal year 2023 allocation in September 2023. CNS did not detect or correct this allocation issue until OSA inquired in September 2024. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Section 19 of the Richard B. Russell NSLA requires that FFVP allocations made by CNS result in a per-pupil grant not less than $50, nor more than $75 to participating SFAs. OSA tested 19 SFAs that participated in FFVP in fiscal year 2024 and found that 14 SFAs had manual allocation adjustments which resulted in ten per-pupil allocations that were not between $50 and $75 per pupil, ranging from $24 per pupil to $109 per pupil. The allocation of funds over $75 per pupil resulted in questioned costs of $9,535. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Summer Food Service Program CNS requires applications from sponsors that include individual site sheets. The information on the sheet must include the estimated number of meals, types of meals to be served, and meal service times. Meal service times must align with the approved application at the time the meals are served. Non-congregate sites must provide enough detail to ensure the area where the site proposes to serve meets certain criteria, including verification that the site: • is rural; • is not or will not be served in whole or in part by another site; • serves an area in which poor economic conditions exist or is approved for reimbursement only for meals served free to enrolled children who meet income standards; and • has procedures to ensure that duplicate meals are not served to any child. Residential and non-residential camps must include in their site sheets the number of children enrolled in each session who meet income standards prior to filing the camp’s CFR for each session. OSA tested 39 SFSP CFRs and found: • nine residential or non-residential camp CFRs that did not include the number of children enrolled in each session who met income standards prior to filing their CFR, resulting in questioned costs totaling $95,902. • two CFRs to non-congregate sites not located in an area where poor economic conditions exist per USDA data. The ineligible sites resulted in questioned costs totaling $15,536. • four CFRs included revised information from the site sheet that did not reflect the conditions at the time the meals were served. The revisions submitted between the meal service and submission of the CFR included an increase in capacity, an addition of meal types, and an addition of operating days, resulting in questioned costs totaling $5,821. • five CFRs to non-congregate sites that did not have documented procedures to prevent duplicate meal service on the site sheet. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Additionally, SFSP has two tiers of administrative rates for reimbursement, self-prep and vended. Sites classified as rural are all reimbursed at the highest rate, but sites classified as urban can either be reimbursed at the higher rate if they serve self-prep meals, or at the lower rate if their meals are vended. CNS previously determined that the field on the application for the sponsor to select whether the meal served is vended or self-prep is not required in the CNPWeb system. At that time, CNS submitted a ticket to request a change to the CNPWeb system to require the sponsor to select a meal type in that field on future applications; however, because that information was not required previously, CNS does not have assurance that urban sites that did not select self-prep or vended are being reimbursed at the correct rate. Furthermore, for each month of operation, CNS must report the number of meals served by meal type and sponsor type to USDA Food Nutrition Services (FNS) on the FNS-418 report. CNS does not have assurance that their default classification of urban sites as self-prep when the field was left blank is accurate for FNS-418 reporting. Context: In fiscal year 2024, CNS processed CFRs totaling: • $55.8 million under NSLP; • $2.8 million under FFVP; and • $2.8 million under SFSP. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Potential incorrect rates of reimbursement paid to SFAs and sponsors • Inaccurate FNS-418 reports submitted to FNS Recommendation: We recommend that CNS enhance policies and procedures to: • require a review of CFRs on a monthly basis in accordance with Federal regulations; • ensure all required information is included in the applications and approved prior to participation; • review and approve area eligibility for non-congregate sites; • require inclusion of self-prep or vended meal types and non-congregate plans on site information sheets that document procedures to prevent duplicate meal service; • ensure session-specific eligibility information is received prior to claim approval for camp sites; and • ensure that site information sheet revisions prohibit the sponsor from using the revised information in a claim for the prior month. In addition, we recommend that CNS enhance oversight over FFVP to ensure: • claims with nonfood costs are reasonable; • allocation amounts remain within $50 to $75 per pupil; and • administrative reviews conducted by CNS include FFVP allowability reviews. Corrective Action Plan: See F-16 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. These findings come from various programs and are correctly outlined in the Condition. However, the Department disagrees with the first bullet in the Recommendation regarding the review of CFRs monthly and has contacted the Northeast Regional Office of the USDA for clarification. Additionally, we disagree with the first bullet point regarding non-food costs in the FFVP program, as it’s addressed in the Administrative Review process. The Department has developed a corrective action plan to address the remaining recommendations. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: 7 CFR 210.8(b)(2) provides detailed requirements outlining the minimum CFR monthly claim review procedures that CNS must perform. CNS has not implemented required procedures, and erroneous CFRs are not detected or corrected, resulting in questioned costs and potential disallowances. In addition, CNS asserts that FFVP nonfood costs are addressed as part of the Administrative Review process; however, OSA identified a material weakness and material noncompliance as issued in finding 2024-032 Internal control over CNC subrecipient monitoring procedures needs improvement. The finding reports that six of the nine Administrative Reviews tested for FFVP inappropriately omitted Federally required steps and that a cost analysis over nonfood costs was not performed. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1203-02)

(2024-031) Title: Internal control over CNC claim reimbursements needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Reporting Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 10.555 $1,605 ALN 10.582 $9,535 ALN 10.559 $117,259 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; due to the variety of site types in the test population and varied meal claim counts, an error rate cannot be applied to the population and a projection of questioned costs cannot be reasonably estimated. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 7 CFR 210.7 and .8; 7 CFR 225.6, .9, and .16; Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, Section 19; U.S. Department of Agriculture Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Handbook The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. 7 CFR 210.7 National School Lunch Program (NSLP) claims for reimbursement (CFRs) must be based on lunch counts taken daily at the point of service (POS), which correctly identify the number of free, reduced price, and paid lunches served to eligible children. 7 CFR 210.8 (NSLP) on a monthly basis, the State agency shall, at a minimum, compare the number of free and reduced price lunches claimed to the number of children approved for free and reduced price lunches enrolled in the School Food Authority (SFA) for the month of October, and multiply that number by the days of operation and the attendance factor employed by the SFA. At its discretion, the State agency may conduct this comparison against data which reflects the number of children approved for free and reduced price lunches for a more current month(s). 7 CFR 225.6 Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) required information must be on a site information sheet that the State agency must provide to the sponsor for approval by the State agency prior to participation in SFSP, including estimated meal counts, types of meals, meal service times, and procedures to ensure duplicate meals are not distributed at non-congregate sites. In order to approve a site, the area where the site proposes to serve is not or will not be served in whole or in part by another site. 7 CFR 225.9 (SFSP) outlines that payments to a sponsor must equal the amount derived by multiplying the number of eligible meals, by type, actually served under the sponsor's program to eligible children by the current applicable reimbursement rate for each meal type. Sponsors must be eligible to receive additional reimbursement for each meal served to participating children at rural or self-preparation sites. 7 CFR 225.16 (SFSP) meals served outside of the meal time listed on the sponsor’s application are not eligible for reimbursement. Sponsors agree in writing to claim reimbursement only for the types of meals specified in the agreement that are served. Section 19 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA) states that the per-pupil grant provided to a school under the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP) shall be not less than $50, nor more than $75. U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) FFVP Handbook, referenced as guidance in Policy Memo SP 17-2023, states that all nonfood costs must be carefully reviewed and deemed reasonable. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) includes the School Breakfast Program, NSLP, Special Milk Program for Children, SFSP and FFVP. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools, residential childcare institutions and summer food programs; to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools; and to encourage the consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department of Education (DOE) is responsible for the administration of child nutrition programs for the State. DOE provides benefits to each SFA or sponsor on a reimbursement basis. SFAs and sponsors must submit claims for reimbursement based on actual meals served for the month and permissible fresh fruits and vegetables utilizing the Child Nutrition Program (CNPWeb) system. The Department is required to review each SFA’s or sponsor’s CFR to ensure that monthly claims are limited to the number of meals served to eligible children and that the cost of the fresh fruits and vegetables are allowable. Once the claims are approved, claims are reimbursed based on the rates that are programmed in the CNPWeb system. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested CFRs for the CNC and found instances that did not align with program regulations for NSLP, FFVP, and SFSP, as follows: National School Lunch Program CNS must perform procedures as outlined in Federal regulations, including a review of CFRs on a monthly basis through analysis utilizing a product of the enrollment information from the month of October multiplied by the days of operation and the attendance factor employed by the SFA. OSA procedures identified that CNS did not review or perform analysis on CFRs on a monthly basis as required. OSA tested 60 CFRs and identified nine CFRs from five SFAs where eligibility information entered on the CFR varied significantly from the information provided and verified by the SFA in October 2023. In order to verify the allowability of the claims identified, OSA requested supporting documentation from those five SFAs. OSA compared the eligibility counts from the CFR, the SFA’s POS reports, the SFA’s October data provided to CNS, and the SFA’s master list of eligible students for the month of the CFR and found: • five POS reports with eligibility counts that conflicted with the master eligibility list provided by the SFA for that month, and with the number of eligible children reported on the CFR, resulting in questioned costs totaling $897; • one POS report from October with eligibility counts that matched the site CFR, but did not match the master eligibility list provided by the SFA, or the data reported to CNS by the SFA for the same month, resulting in questioned costs totaling $708; and • documentation for three CFRs could not be provided. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program CNS ensures compliance with Federal regulations through the annual administrative review process. OSA tested 17 FFVP CFRs from the nine SFAs who had an administrative review in fiscal year 2024 and found: • nine claims from five SFAs had sites with nonfood costs that were not reviewed during the administrative review process. • for six of the nine SFAs, portions of the administrative review process were erroneously omitted; therefore, CNS did not review or examine the allowability for any FFVP CFRs for those six SFAs. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. The FFVP fiscal year is October 1 to September 30; therefore, though schools may begin the school year with unspent funds from the prior school year, these funds must be spent by September 30. OSA tested 19 FFVP SFAs that participated in both fiscal year 2023 and 2024 and found that three SFAs exceeded their fiscal year 2023 allocation in September 2023. CNS did not detect or correct this allocation issue until OSA inquired in September 2024. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Section 19 of the Richard B. Russell NSLA requires that FFVP allocations made by CNS result in a per-pupil grant not less than $50, nor more than $75 to participating SFAs. OSA tested 19 SFAs that participated in FFVP in fiscal year 2024 and found that 14 SFAs had manual allocation adjustments which resulted in ten per-pupil allocations that were not between $50 and $75 per pupil, ranging from $24 per pupil to $109 per pupil. The allocation of funds over $75 per pupil resulted in questioned costs of $9,535. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Summer Food Service Program CNS requires applications from sponsors that include individual site sheets. The information on the sheet must include the estimated number of meals, types of meals to be served, and meal service times. Meal service times must align with the approved application at the time the meals are served. Non-congregate sites must provide enough detail to ensure the area where the site proposes to serve meets certain criteria, including verification that the site: • is rural; • is not or will not be served in whole or in part by another site; • serves an area in which poor economic conditions exist or is approved for reimbursement only for meals served free to enrolled children who meet income standards; and • has procedures to ensure that duplicate meals are not served to any child. Residential and non-residential camps must include in their site sheets the number of children enrolled in each session who meet income standards prior to filing the camp’s CFR for each session. OSA tested 39 SFSP CFRs and found: • nine residential or non-residential camp CFRs that did not include the number of children enrolled in each session who met income standards prior to filing their CFR, resulting in questioned costs totaling $95,902. • two CFRs to non-congregate sites not located in an area where poor economic conditions exist per USDA data. The ineligible sites resulted in questioned costs totaling $15,536. • four CFRs included revised information from the site sheet that did not reflect the conditions at the time the meals were served. The revisions submitted between the meal service and submission of the CFR included an increase in capacity, an addition of meal types, and an addition of operating days, resulting in questioned costs totaling $5,821. • five CFRs to non-congregate sites that did not have documented procedures to prevent duplicate meal service on the site sheet. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Additionally, SFSP has two tiers of administrative rates for reimbursement, self-prep and vended. Sites classified as rural are all reimbursed at the highest rate, but sites classified as urban can either be reimbursed at the higher rate if they serve self-prep meals, or at the lower rate if their meals are vended. CNS previously determined that the field on the application for the sponsor to select whether the meal served is vended or self-prep is not required in the CNPWeb system. At that time, CNS submitted a ticket to request a change to the CNPWeb system to require the sponsor to select a meal type in that field on future applications; however, because that information was not required previously, CNS does not have assurance that urban sites that did not select self-prep or vended are being reimbursed at the correct rate. Furthermore, for each month of operation, CNS must report the number of meals served by meal type and sponsor type to USDA Food Nutrition Services (FNS) on the FNS-418 report. CNS does not have assurance that their default classification of urban sites as self-prep when the field was left blank is accurate for FNS-418 reporting. Context: In fiscal year 2024, CNS processed CFRs totaling: • $55.8 million under NSLP; • $2.8 million under FFVP; and • $2.8 million under SFSP. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Potential incorrect rates of reimbursement paid to SFAs and sponsors • Inaccurate FNS-418 reports submitted to FNS Recommendation: We recommend that CNS enhance policies and procedures to: • require a review of CFRs on a monthly basis in accordance with Federal regulations; • ensure all required information is included in the applications and approved prior to participation; • review and approve area eligibility for non-congregate sites; • require inclusion of self-prep or vended meal types and non-congregate plans on site information sheets that document procedures to prevent duplicate meal service; • ensure session-specific eligibility information is received prior to claim approval for camp sites; and • ensure that site information sheet revisions prohibit the sponsor from using the revised information in a claim for the prior month. In addition, we recommend that CNS enhance oversight over FFVP to ensure: • claims with nonfood costs are reasonable; • allocation amounts remain within $50 to $75 per pupil; and • administrative reviews conducted by CNS include FFVP allowability reviews. Corrective Action Plan: See F-16 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. These findings come from various programs and are correctly outlined in the Condition. However, the Department disagrees with the first bullet in the Recommendation regarding the review of CFRs monthly and has contacted the Northeast Regional Office of the USDA for clarification. Additionally, we disagree with the first bullet point regarding non-food costs in the FFVP program, as it’s addressed in the Administrative Review process. The Department has developed a corrective action plan to address the remaining recommendations. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: 7 CFR 210.8(b)(2) provides detailed requirements outlining the minimum CFR monthly claim review procedures that CNS must perform. CNS has not implemented required procedures, and erroneous CFRs are not detected or corrected, resulting in questioned costs and potential disallowances. In addition, CNS asserts that FFVP nonfood costs are addressed as part of the Administrative Review process; however, OSA identified a material weakness and material noncompliance as issued in finding 2024-032 Internal control over CNC subrecipient monitoring procedures needs improvement. The finding reports that six of the nine Administrative Reviews tested for FFVP inappropriately omitted Federally required steps and that a cost analysis over nonfood costs was not performed. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1203-02)

(2024-032) Title: Internal control over CNC subrecipient monitoring procedures needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Subrecipient monitoring Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.332; 7 CFR 210.18; 7 CFR 225.7; U.S. Department of Agriculture Policy Memo SP 46-2015 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. The Department must conduct administrative reviews of School Food Authorities (SFAs) participating in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP). These procedures must also be followed, as applicable, to conduct administrative reviews of the afterschool snacks, Special Milk Program (SMP) and the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP). Documented corrective action is required for any degree of violation of general or critical areas identified in an administrative review. Corrective action may be provided at the time of the review; however, it must be postmarked or submitted to the State agency electronically no later than 30 days from the deadline for completion of each required corrective action. The State agency must maintain any documented corrective action on file for review by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). The Department must withhold all program payments to a SFA if: • documented corrective action for critical area violations is not provided with deadlines specified; or • corrective action for critical area violations was not completed. FNS may suspend or withhold program payments, in whole or in part, to those states failing to withhold payments in accordance with regulations and may withhold administrative funds. The Department must review sponsors to ensure compliance with Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) regulations. The Department is required to conduct a review of base year certification and benefit issuance documentation for any SFA requesting approval to participate in NSLP or SBP using U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Special Provision 2, which is a provision established to reduce application burdens and simplify claim procedures. The review must occur at some point during the base year. If errors are identified as a result of the review, the Department must adjust all of the SFA’s closed claims that occurred in the current school year. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) includes the NSLP, SBP, SMP, SFSP, and FFVP. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools and summer food programs; to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools; and to encourage consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department of Education (DOE) is responsible for the administration of child nutrition programs for the State. DOE partners with local SFAs and sponsors to provide benefits to school-aged children. DOE has assigned subrecipient monitoring responsibilities, which include administrative reviews and other reviews as needed, to the Child Nutrition Services (CNS) division. Administrative reviews of all SFAs are required at least once every five years; however, regulations also specify that high-risk SFAs must receive targeted follow-up within two years. CNS utilizes a spreadsheet to track and facilitate the reviews, and a USDA questionnaire to document the completion of the review. CNS does not have a mechanism to centrally track the high-risk SFAs to ensure follow-up occurs. CNS is required to retain documentation to support all elements of the administrative reviews and to demonstrate the SFA’s compliance with the program, even if corrective action occurs onsite during the review. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 29 administrative reviews completed by CNS and found: • Performance Standard 1 findings, deemed critical findings by USDA, were identified in four reviews, but were not tracked for follow-up. In addition, corrective action was not provided within 30 days for one review. • Performance Standard 2 findings, also deemed critical by USDA, were identified in three reviews, but were not tracked for follow-up. In addition, corrective action was not provided within 30 days for two reviews. • corrective action completed onsite was indicated in five reviews; however, CNS could not provide documentation to support the corrective action. • corrective action for three reviews did not fully address the deficiencies noted. • corrective action for two reviews was received more than 30 days late. • 12 reviews were closed; however, corrective action remained outstanding. • one sponsor submitted corrective action in October 2023, but as of audit testing in March 2025, CNS had not notified the sponsor of the approval and had not closed the sponsor’s review. • corrective action submitted from two SFAs was not approved, and the SFAs were not notified until nine months after their submission. • the review tracking spreadsheet was not fully completed or conflicted with information obtained from the administrative review for 16 reviews. • questionnaires were not fully completed for seven reviews. • USDA questionnaire sections related to FFVP and SMP were erroneously excluded for eight reviews. • the date for required corrective action to be provided was omitted for seven reviews. • one review was erroneously excluded from the review tracking spreadsheet. In addition to administrative reviews, CNS must perform base year reviews for all SFAs that have applied to participate in USDA Special Provision 2. These base year reviews provide the required information necessary to determine the level of claims the SFA may submit in the subsequent three years. After completion of the base year review, a letter detailing the results, including any adjustments to previously submitted claims, is provided to the SFA. The SFA is required to adjust claims and enrollment data through the claim revision process and CNS is responsible for verifying that the appropriate revisions have been completed. In fiscal year 2024, CNS identified 17 SFAs that required a base year review. OSA tested four base year reviews and identified three SFAs that did not properly revise claims and enrollment data, and CNS did not verify the accuracy of the revisions completed by the SFAs. In addition, one SFA had an eligibility determination that was not supported by the application. The income amount included in the application exceeded income requirements for reduced-price eligibility, but the SFA categorized the applicant as eligible for reduced-price meals. In the base year review, the application was not recategorized by CNS, and claims were not revised to match the eligibility determination. OSA cannot determine if unallowable costs exist through the audit of subrecipient monitoring activities, as required information was not collected. OSA has questioned costs through the audit of allowable costs/costs principles and eligibility, see findings 2024-031 Internal control over CNC reimbursements needs improvement and 2024-030 Internal control over CNC eligibility needs improvement, respectively. OSA selected non-statistical random samples. Context: In fiscal year 2024, CNC expenditures totaled approximately $68 million, of which $67.6 million was provided to 241 SFAs and sponsors. Cause: • Lack of policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Subrecipients may not be complying with Federal statutes, regulations, or the terms and conditions of the subaward. • Potential questioned costs and disallowances. Base year reviews provide authorization for the level of allowable claims the SFA can claim in subsequent periods. Without a base year review and necessary revisions, SFAs could be underclaiming or overclaiming costs. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement policies and procedures and increase oversight to ensure that: • reviews are completed as required and supporting documentation is retained; • high-risk SFAs are tracked and considered in planning follow-up reviews; • SFAs revise claims appropriately after a base year review; and • CNS verifies that claim adjustments occur as necessary. Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Department will improve tracking and create procedures to evaluate the Administrative Review Processes for the team. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 (State Number: 24-1203-06)

(2024-032) Title: Internal control over CNC subrecipient monitoring procedures needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Subrecipient monitoring Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.332; 7 CFR 210.18; 7 CFR 225.7; U.S. Department of Agriculture Policy Memo SP 46-2015 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. The Department must conduct administrative reviews of School Food Authorities (SFAs) participating in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP). These procedures must also be followed, as applicable, to conduct administrative reviews of the afterschool snacks, Special Milk Program (SMP) and the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP). Documented corrective action is required for any degree of violation of general or critical areas identified in an administrative review. Corrective action may be provided at the time of the review; however, it must be postmarked or submitted to the State agency electronically no later than 30 days from the deadline for completion of each required corrective action. The State agency must maintain any documented corrective action on file for review by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). The Department must withhold all program payments to a SFA if: • documented corrective action for critical area violations is not provided with deadlines specified; or • corrective action for critical area violations was not completed. FNS may suspend or withhold program payments, in whole or in part, to those states failing to withhold payments in accordance with regulations and may withhold administrative funds. The Department must review sponsors to ensure compliance with Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) regulations. The Department is required to conduct a review of base year certification and benefit issuance documentation for any SFA requesting approval to participate in NSLP or SBP using U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Special Provision 2, which is a provision established to reduce application burdens and simplify claim procedures. The review must occur at some point during the base year. If errors are identified as a result of the review, the Department must adjust all of the SFA’s closed claims that occurred in the current school year. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) includes the NSLP, SBP, SMP, SFSP, and FFVP. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools and summer food programs; to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools; and to encourage consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department of Education (DOE) is responsible for the administration of child nutrition programs for the State. DOE partners with local SFAs and sponsors to provide benefits to school-aged children. DOE has assigned subrecipient monitoring responsibilities, which include administrative reviews and other reviews as needed, to the Child Nutrition Services (CNS) division. Administrative reviews of all SFAs are required at least once every five years; however, regulations also specify that high-risk SFAs must receive targeted follow-up within two years. CNS utilizes a spreadsheet to track and facilitate the reviews, and a USDA questionnaire to document the completion of the review. CNS does not have a mechanism to centrally track the high-risk SFAs to ensure follow-up occurs. CNS is required to retain documentation to support all elements of the administrative reviews and to demonstrate the SFA’s compliance with the program, even if corrective action occurs onsite during the review. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 29 administrative reviews completed by CNS and found: • Performance Standard 1 findings, deemed critical findings by USDA, were identified in four reviews, but were not tracked for follow-up. In addition, corrective action was not provided within 30 days for one review. • Performance Standard 2 findings, also deemed critical by USDA, were identified in three reviews, but were not tracked for follow-up. In addition, corrective action was not provided within 30 days for two reviews. • corrective action completed onsite was indicated in five reviews; however, CNS could not provide documentation to support the corrective action. • corrective action for three reviews did not fully address the deficiencies noted. • corrective action for two reviews was received more than 30 days late. • 12 reviews were closed; however, corrective action remained outstanding. • one sponsor submitted corrective action in October 2023, but as of audit testing in March 2025, CNS had not notified the sponsor of the approval and had not closed the sponsor’s review. • corrective action submitted from two SFAs was not approved, and the SFAs were not notified until nine months after their submission. • the review tracking spreadsheet was not fully completed or conflicted with information obtained from the administrative review for 16 reviews. • questionnaires were not fully completed for seven reviews. • USDA questionnaire sections related to FFVP and SMP were erroneously excluded for eight reviews. • the date for required corrective action to be provided was omitted for seven reviews. • one review was erroneously excluded from the review tracking spreadsheet. In addition to administrative reviews, CNS must perform base year reviews for all SFAs that have applied to participate in USDA Special Provision 2. These base year reviews provide the required information necessary to determine the level of claims the SFA may submit in the subsequent three years. After completion of the base year review, a letter detailing the results, including any adjustments to previously submitted claims, is provided to the SFA. The SFA is required to adjust claims and enrollment data through the claim revision process and CNS is responsible for verifying that the appropriate revisions have been completed. In fiscal year 2024, CNS identified 17 SFAs that required a base year review. OSA tested four base year reviews and identified three SFAs that did not properly revise claims and enrollment data, and CNS did not verify the accuracy of the revisions completed by the SFAs. In addition, one SFA had an eligibility determination that was not supported by the application. The income amount included in the application exceeded income requirements for reduced-price eligibility, but the SFA categorized the applicant as eligible for reduced-price meals. In the base year review, the application was not recategorized by CNS, and claims were not revised to match the eligibility determination. OSA cannot determine if unallowable costs exist through the audit of subrecipient monitoring activities, as required information was not collected. OSA has questioned costs through the audit of allowable costs/costs principles and eligibility, see findings 2024-031 Internal control over CNC reimbursements needs improvement and 2024-030 Internal control over CNC eligibility needs improvement, respectively. OSA selected non-statistical random samples. Context: In fiscal year 2024, CNC expenditures totaled approximately $68 million, of which $67.6 million was provided to 241 SFAs and sponsors. Cause: • Lack of policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Subrecipients may not be complying with Federal statutes, regulations, or the terms and conditions of the subaward. • Potential questioned costs and disallowances. Base year reviews provide authorization for the level of allowable claims the SFA can claim in subsequent periods. Without a base year review and necessary revisions, SFAs could be underclaiming or overclaiming costs. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement policies and procedures and increase oversight to ensure that: • reviews are completed as required and supporting documentation is retained; • high-risk SFAs are tracked and considered in planning follow-up reviews; • SFAs revise claims appropriately after a base year review; and • CNS verifies that claim adjustments occur as necessary. Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Department will improve tracking and create procedures to evaluate the Administrative Review Processes for the team. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 (State Number: 24-1203-06)

(2024-032) Title: Internal control over CNC subrecipient monitoring procedures needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Subrecipient monitoring Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.332; 7 CFR 210.18; 7 CFR 225.7; U.S. Department of Agriculture Policy Memo SP 46-2015 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. The Department must conduct administrative reviews of School Food Authorities (SFAs) participating in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP). These procedures must also be followed, as applicable, to conduct administrative reviews of the afterschool snacks, Special Milk Program (SMP) and the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP). Documented corrective action is required for any degree of violation of general or critical areas identified in an administrative review. Corrective action may be provided at the time of the review; however, it must be postmarked or submitted to the State agency electronically no later than 30 days from the deadline for completion of each required corrective action. The State agency must maintain any documented corrective action on file for review by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). The Department must withhold all program payments to a SFA if: • documented corrective action for critical area violations is not provided with deadlines specified; or • corrective action for critical area violations was not completed. FNS may suspend or withhold program payments, in whole or in part, to those states failing to withhold payments in accordance with regulations and may withhold administrative funds. The Department must review sponsors to ensure compliance with Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) regulations. The Department is required to conduct a review of base year certification and benefit issuance documentation for any SFA requesting approval to participate in NSLP or SBP using U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Special Provision 2, which is a provision established to reduce application burdens and simplify claim procedures. The review must occur at some point during the base year. If errors are identified as a result of the review, the Department must adjust all of the SFA’s closed claims that occurred in the current school year. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) includes the NSLP, SBP, SMP, SFSP, and FFVP. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools and summer food programs; to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools; and to encourage consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department of Education (DOE) is responsible for the administration of child nutrition programs for the State. DOE partners with local SFAs and sponsors to provide benefits to school-aged children. DOE has assigned subrecipient monitoring responsibilities, which include administrative reviews and other reviews as needed, to the Child Nutrition Services (CNS) division. Administrative reviews of all SFAs are required at least once every five years; however, regulations also specify that high-risk SFAs must receive targeted follow-up within two years. CNS utilizes a spreadsheet to track and facilitate the reviews, and a USDA questionnaire to document the completion of the review. CNS does not have a mechanism to centrally track the high-risk SFAs to ensure follow-up occurs. CNS is required to retain documentation to support all elements of the administrative reviews and to demonstrate the SFA’s compliance with the program, even if corrective action occurs onsite during the review. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 29 administrative reviews completed by CNS and found: • Performance Standard 1 findings, deemed critical findings by USDA, were identified in four reviews, but were not tracked for follow-up. In addition, corrective action was not provided within 30 days for one review. • Performance Standard 2 findings, also deemed critical by USDA, were identified in three reviews, but were not tracked for follow-up. In addition, corrective action was not provided within 30 days for two reviews. • corrective action completed onsite was indicated in five reviews; however, CNS could not provide documentation to support the corrective action. • corrective action for three reviews did not fully address the deficiencies noted. • corrective action for two reviews was received more than 30 days late. • 12 reviews were closed; however, corrective action remained outstanding. • one sponsor submitted corrective action in October 2023, but as of audit testing in March 2025, CNS had not notified the sponsor of the approval and had not closed the sponsor’s review. • corrective action submitted from two SFAs was not approved, and the SFAs were not notified until nine months after their submission. • the review tracking spreadsheet was not fully completed or conflicted with information obtained from the administrative review for 16 reviews. • questionnaires were not fully completed for seven reviews. • USDA questionnaire sections related to FFVP and SMP were erroneously excluded for eight reviews. • the date for required corrective action to be provided was omitted for seven reviews. • one review was erroneously excluded from the review tracking spreadsheet. In addition to administrative reviews, CNS must perform base year reviews for all SFAs that have applied to participate in USDA Special Provision 2. These base year reviews provide the required information necessary to determine the level of claims the SFA may submit in the subsequent three years. After completion of the base year review, a letter detailing the results, including any adjustments to previously submitted claims, is provided to the SFA. The SFA is required to adjust claims and enrollment data through the claim revision process and CNS is responsible for verifying that the appropriate revisions have been completed. In fiscal year 2024, CNS identified 17 SFAs that required a base year review. OSA tested four base year reviews and identified three SFAs that did not properly revise claims and enrollment data, and CNS did not verify the accuracy of the revisions completed by the SFAs. In addition, one SFA had an eligibility determination that was not supported by the application. The income amount included in the application exceeded income requirements for reduced-price eligibility, but the SFA categorized the applicant as eligible for reduced-price meals. In the base year review, the application was not recategorized by CNS, and claims were not revised to match the eligibility determination. OSA cannot determine if unallowable costs exist through the audit of subrecipient monitoring activities, as required information was not collected. OSA has questioned costs through the audit of allowable costs/costs principles and eligibility, see findings 2024-031 Internal control over CNC reimbursements needs improvement and 2024-030 Internal control over CNC eligibility needs improvement, respectively. OSA selected non-statistical random samples. Context: In fiscal year 2024, CNC expenditures totaled approximately $68 million, of which $67.6 million was provided to 241 SFAs and sponsors. Cause: • Lack of policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Subrecipients may not be complying with Federal statutes, regulations, or the terms and conditions of the subaward. • Potential questioned costs and disallowances. Base year reviews provide authorization for the level of allowable claims the SFA can claim in subsequent periods. Without a base year review and necessary revisions, SFAs could be underclaiming or overclaiming costs. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement policies and procedures and increase oversight to ensure that: • reviews are completed as required and supporting documentation is retained; • high-risk SFAs are tracked and considered in planning follow-up reviews; • SFAs revise claims appropriately after a base year review; and • CNS verifies that claim adjustments occur as necessary. Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Department will improve tracking and create procedures to evaluate the Administrative Review Processes for the team. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 (State Number: 24-1203-06)

(2024-032) Title: Internal control over CNC subrecipient monitoring procedures needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Subrecipient monitoring Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.332; 7 CFR 210.18; 7 CFR 225.7; U.S. Department of Agriculture Policy Memo SP 46-2015 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. The Department must conduct administrative reviews of School Food Authorities (SFAs) participating in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP). These procedures must also be followed, as applicable, to conduct administrative reviews of the afterschool snacks, Special Milk Program (SMP) and the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP). Documented corrective action is required for any degree of violation of general or critical areas identified in an administrative review. Corrective action may be provided at the time of the review; however, it must be postmarked or submitted to the State agency electronically no later than 30 days from the deadline for completion of each required corrective action. The State agency must maintain any documented corrective action on file for review by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). The Department must withhold all program payments to a SFA if: • documented corrective action for critical area violations is not provided with deadlines specified; or • corrective action for critical area violations was not completed. FNS may suspend or withhold program payments, in whole or in part, to those states failing to withhold payments in accordance with regulations and may withhold administrative funds. The Department must review sponsors to ensure compliance with Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) regulations. The Department is required to conduct a review of base year certification and benefit issuance documentation for any SFA requesting approval to participate in NSLP or SBP using U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Special Provision 2, which is a provision established to reduce application burdens and simplify claim procedures. The review must occur at some point during the base year. If errors are identified as a result of the review, the Department must adjust all of the SFA’s closed claims that occurred in the current school year. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) includes the NSLP, SBP, SMP, SFSP, and FFVP. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools and summer food programs; to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools; and to encourage consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department of Education (DOE) is responsible for the administration of child nutrition programs for the State. DOE partners with local SFAs and sponsors to provide benefits to school-aged children. DOE has assigned subrecipient monitoring responsibilities, which include administrative reviews and other reviews as needed, to the Child Nutrition Services (CNS) division. Administrative reviews of all SFAs are required at least once every five years; however, regulations also specify that high-risk SFAs must receive targeted follow-up within two years. CNS utilizes a spreadsheet to track and facilitate the reviews, and a USDA questionnaire to document the completion of the review. CNS does not have a mechanism to centrally track the high-risk SFAs to ensure follow-up occurs. CNS is required to retain documentation to support all elements of the administrative reviews and to demonstrate the SFA’s compliance with the program, even if corrective action occurs onsite during the review. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 29 administrative reviews completed by CNS and found: • Performance Standard 1 findings, deemed critical findings by USDA, were identified in four reviews, but were not tracked for follow-up. In addition, corrective action was not provided within 30 days for one review. • Performance Standard 2 findings, also deemed critical by USDA, were identified in three reviews, but were not tracked for follow-up. In addition, corrective action was not provided within 30 days for two reviews. • corrective action completed onsite was indicated in five reviews; however, CNS could not provide documentation to support the corrective action. • corrective action for three reviews did not fully address the deficiencies noted. • corrective action for two reviews was received more than 30 days late. • 12 reviews were closed; however, corrective action remained outstanding. • one sponsor submitted corrective action in October 2023, but as of audit testing in March 2025, CNS had not notified the sponsor of the approval and had not closed the sponsor’s review. • corrective action submitted from two SFAs was not approved, and the SFAs were not notified until nine months after their submission. • the review tracking spreadsheet was not fully completed or conflicted with information obtained from the administrative review for 16 reviews. • questionnaires were not fully completed for seven reviews. • USDA questionnaire sections related to FFVP and SMP were erroneously excluded for eight reviews. • the date for required corrective action to be provided was omitted for seven reviews. • one review was erroneously excluded from the review tracking spreadsheet. In addition to administrative reviews, CNS must perform base year reviews for all SFAs that have applied to participate in USDA Special Provision 2. These base year reviews provide the required information necessary to determine the level of claims the SFA may submit in the subsequent three years. After completion of the base year review, a letter detailing the results, including any adjustments to previously submitted claims, is provided to the SFA. The SFA is required to adjust claims and enrollment data through the claim revision process and CNS is responsible for verifying that the appropriate revisions have been completed. In fiscal year 2024, CNS identified 17 SFAs that required a base year review. OSA tested four base year reviews and identified three SFAs that did not properly revise claims and enrollment data, and CNS did not verify the accuracy of the revisions completed by the SFAs. In addition, one SFA had an eligibility determination that was not supported by the application. The income amount included in the application exceeded income requirements for reduced-price eligibility, but the SFA categorized the applicant as eligible for reduced-price meals. In the base year review, the application was not recategorized by CNS, and claims were not revised to match the eligibility determination. OSA cannot determine if unallowable costs exist through the audit of subrecipient monitoring activities, as required information was not collected. OSA has questioned costs through the audit of allowable costs/costs principles and eligibility, see findings 2024-031 Internal control over CNC reimbursements needs improvement and 2024-030 Internal control over CNC eligibility needs improvement, respectively. OSA selected non-statistical random samples. Context: In fiscal year 2024, CNC expenditures totaled approximately $68 million, of which $67.6 million was provided to 241 SFAs and sponsors. Cause: • Lack of policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Subrecipients may not be complying with Federal statutes, regulations, or the terms and conditions of the subaward. • Potential questioned costs and disallowances. Base year reviews provide authorization for the level of allowable claims the SFA can claim in subsequent periods. Without a base year review and necessary revisions, SFAs could be underclaiming or overclaiming costs. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement policies and procedures and increase oversight to ensure that: • reviews are completed as required and supporting documentation is retained; • high-risk SFAs are tracked and considered in planning follow-up reviews; • SFAs revise claims appropriately after a base year review; and • CNS verifies that claim adjustments occur as necessary. Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Department will improve tracking and create procedures to evaluate the Administrative Review Processes for the team. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 (State Number: 24-1203-06)

(2024-032) Title: Internal control over CNC subrecipient monitoring procedures needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Subrecipient monitoring Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.332; 7 CFR 210.18; 7 CFR 225.7; U.S. Department of Agriculture Policy Memo SP 46-2015 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. The Department must conduct administrative reviews of School Food Authorities (SFAs) participating in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP). These procedures must also be followed, as applicable, to conduct administrative reviews of the afterschool snacks, Special Milk Program (SMP) and the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP). Documented corrective action is required for any degree of violation of general or critical areas identified in an administrative review. Corrective action may be provided at the time of the review; however, it must be postmarked or submitted to the State agency electronically no later than 30 days from the deadline for completion of each required corrective action. The State agency must maintain any documented corrective action on file for review by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). The Department must withhold all program payments to a SFA if: • documented corrective action for critical area violations is not provided with deadlines specified; or • corrective action for critical area violations was not completed. FNS may suspend or withhold program payments, in whole or in part, to those states failing to withhold payments in accordance with regulations and may withhold administrative funds. The Department must review sponsors to ensure compliance with Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) regulations. The Department is required to conduct a review of base year certification and benefit issuance documentation for any SFA requesting approval to participate in NSLP or SBP using U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Special Provision 2, which is a provision established to reduce application burdens and simplify claim procedures. The review must occur at some point during the base year. If errors are identified as a result of the review, the Department must adjust all of the SFA’s closed claims that occurred in the current school year. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) includes the NSLP, SBP, SMP, SFSP, and FFVP. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools and summer food programs; to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools; and to encourage consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department of Education (DOE) is responsible for the administration of child nutrition programs for the State. DOE partners with local SFAs and sponsors to provide benefits to school-aged children. DOE has assigned subrecipient monitoring responsibilities, which include administrative reviews and other reviews as needed, to the Child Nutrition Services (CNS) division. Administrative reviews of all SFAs are required at least once every five years; however, regulations also specify that high-risk SFAs must receive targeted follow-up within two years. CNS utilizes a spreadsheet to track and facilitate the reviews, and a USDA questionnaire to document the completion of the review. CNS does not have a mechanism to centrally track the high-risk SFAs to ensure follow-up occurs. CNS is required to retain documentation to support all elements of the administrative reviews and to demonstrate the SFA’s compliance with the program, even if corrective action occurs onsite during the review. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 29 administrative reviews completed by CNS and found: • Performance Standard 1 findings, deemed critical findings by USDA, were identified in four reviews, but were not tracked for follow-up. In addition, corrective action was not provided within 30 days for one review. • Performance Standard 2 findings, also deemed critical by USDA, were identified in three reviews, but were not tracked for follow-up. In addition, corrective action was not provided within 30 days for two reviews. • corrective action completed onsite was indicated in five reviews; however, CNS could not provide documentation to support the corrective action. • corrective action for three reviews did not fully address the deficiencies noted. • corrective action for two reviews was received more than 30 days late. • 12 reviews were closed; however, corrective action remained outstanding. • one sponsor submitted corrective action in October 2023, but as of audit testing in March 2025, CNS had not notified the sponsor of the approval and had not closed the sponsor’s review. • corrective action submitted from two SFAs was not approved, and the SFAs were not notified until nine months after their submission. • the review tracking spreadsheet was not fully completed or conflicted with information obtained from the administrative review for 16 reviews. • questionnaires were not fully completed for seven reviews. • USDA questionnaire sections related to FFVP and SMP were erroneously excluded for eight reviews. • the date for required corrective action to be provided was omitted for seven reviews. • one review was erroneously excluded from the review tracking spreadsheet. In addition to administrative reviews, CNS must perform base year reviews for all SFAs that have applied to participate in USDA Special Provision 2. These base year reviews provide the required information necessary to determine the level of claims the SFA may submit in the subsequent three years. After completion of the base year review, a letter detailing the results, including any adjustments to previously submitted claims, is provided to the SFA. The SFA is required to adjust claims and enrollment data through the claim revision process and CNS is responsible for verifying that the appropriate revisions have been completed. In fiscal year 2024, CNS identified 17 SFAs that required a base year review. OSA tested four base year reviews and identified three SFAs that did not properly revise claims and enrollment data, and CNS did not verify the accuracy of the revisions completed by the SFAs. In addition, one SFA had an eligibility determination that was not supported by the application. The income amount included in the application exceeded income requirements for reduced-price eligibility, but the SFA categorized the applicant as eligible for reduced-price meals. In the base year review, the application was not recategorized by CNS, and claims were not revised to match the eligibility determination. OSA cannot determine if unallowable costs exist through the audit of subrecipient monitoring activities, as required information was not collected. OSA has questioned costs through the audit of allowable costs/costs principles and eligibility, see findings 2024-031 Internal control over CNC reimbursements needs improvement and 2024-030 Internal control over CNC eligibility needs improvement, respectively. OSA selected non-statistical random samples. Context: In fiscal year 2024, CNC expenditures totaled approximately $68 million, of which $67.6 million was provided to 241 SFAs and sponsors. Cause: • Lack of policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Subrecipients may not be complying with Federal statutes, regulations, or the terms and conditions of the subaward. • Potential questioned costs and disallowances. Base year reviews provide authorization for the level of allowable claims the SFA can claim in subsequent periods. Without a base year review and necessary revisions, SFAs could be underclaiming or overclaiming costs. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement policies and procedures and increase oversight to ensure that: • reviews are completed as required and supporting documentation is retained; • high-risk SFAs are tracked and considered in planning follow-up reviews; • SFAs revise claims appropriately after a base year review; and • CNS verifies that claim adjustments occur as necessary. Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Department will improve tracking and create procedures to evaluate the Administrative Review Processes for the team. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 (State Number: 24-1203-06)

(2024-033) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________, ________, and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Material weakness Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0909-02)

(2024-033) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________, ________, and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Material weakness Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0909-02)

(2024-033) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________, ________, and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Material weakness Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0909-02)

(2024-033) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________, ________, and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Material weakness Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0909-02)

(2024-033) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________, ________, and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Material weakness Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0909-02)

(2024-034) Title: Internal control over the submission of CNC Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards information needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.502 and .510; 7 CFR 250.58(e); U.S. Department of Agriculture Policy No. FD-104 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must prepare a Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for the period covered by the State’s financial statements which must include the total Federal awards expended, including distribution or use of food commodities. Federal non-cash assistance, such as food commodities, must be valued at fair market value at the time of receipt or the assessed value provided by the Federal Agency. For a cluster of programs, the SEFA must list individual Federal programs within the cluster. In meeting the commodity offer value of donated foods for the school food authority, the distributing agency must use the cost-per-pound donated food price posted annually by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the most recently published cost-per-pound price in the USDA donated foods catalog, and/or a rolling average of the USDA prices. Each distributing or recipient agency must choose a method of valuing USDA donated foods for audit purposes. In most cases, it is recommended that a distributing or recipient agency use one of the options listed in 7 CFR 250.58(e). Once a method of assigning value to USDA donated foods is selected, it must be used consistently in all its audit activities and the State must maintain a record of the means of valuing donated foods for such purposes. Condition: The Department must complete and submit exhibits and related schedules to the Office of the State Controller (OSC) at the close of each fiscal year to report Federal award information for the Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) for inclusion on the State’s SEFA. OSC is responsible for compiling this information on behalf of the State. The Department submitted exhibits to OSC that: • incorrectly excluded $1.2 million of fresh food distributed to subrecipients and additional commodity items received. • incorrectly reported $4,481 of non-cash food assistance under ALN 10.555 National School Lunch Program that should have been reported under ALN 10.559 Summer Food Service Program. • incorrectly excluded $256 of expenditures under ALN 10.556 Special Milk Program. • incorrectly categorized $98,963 in expenditures related to the State’s juvenile correctional facility as subrecipient expenditures instead of direct expenditures. Context: In fiscal year 2024: • CNC expenditures totaled approximately $68 million. • noncash assistance totaling $1.2 million was not reported to OSC by the Department for inclusion on the SEFA. Noncash assistance for CNC totaled $6.2 million. Cause: • Lack of policies and procedures relating to Department SEFA submissions to OSC • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: Inaccurate reporting of expenditure amounts on the SEFA, which is submitted to the Federal government, may result in incorrect information used for programmatic, policy, or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement policies and procedures that require a comprehensive review of SEFA schedules prior to submission to OSC. In addition, we recommend enhanced oversight of policies and procedures to ensure they are consistently applied and the SEFA is accurate and complete. Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The SEFA Review Procedure has been updated to include more specific information regarding the calculation of amounts reported for the Special Milk Program and noncash assistance and the classification of payments made to a school as direct payments rather than subrecipient expenditures. Contact: Nicole Denis, Director of Finance, DOE, 207-530-2161 (State Number: 24-1203-01)

(2024-034) Title: Internal control over the submission of CNC Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards information needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.502 and .510; 7 CFR 250.58(e); U.S. Department of Agriculture Policy No. FD-104 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must prepare a Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for the period covered by the State’s financial statements which must include the total Federal awards expended, including distribution or use of food commodities. Federal non-cash assistance, such as food commodities, must be valued at fair market value at the time of receipt or the assessed value provided by the Federal Agency. For a cluster of programs, the SEFA must list individual Federal programs within the cluster. In meeting the commodity offer value of donated foods for the school food authority, the distributing agency must use the cost-per-pound donated food price posted annually by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the most recently published cost-per-pound price in the USDA donated foods catalog, and/or a rolling average of the USDA prices. Each distributing or recipient agency must choose a method of valuing USDA donated foods for audit purposes. In most cases, it is recommended that a distributing or recipient agency use one of the options listed in 7 CFR 250.58(e). Once a method of assigning value to USDA donated foods is selected, it must be used consistently in all its audit activities and the State must maintain a record of the means of valuing donated foods for such purposes. Condition: The Department must complete and submit exhibits and related schedules to the Office of the State Controller (OSC) at the close of each fiscal year to report Federal award information for the Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) for inclusion on the State’s SEFA. OSC is responsible for compiling this information on behalf of the State. The Department submitted exhibits to OSC that: • incorrectly excluded $1.2 million of fresh food distributed to subrecipients and additional commodity items received. • incorrectly reported $4,481 of non-cash food assistance under ALN 10.555 National School Lunch Program that should have been reported under ALN 10.559 Summer Food Service Program. • incorrectly excluded $256 of expenditures under ALN 10.556 Special Milk Program. • incorrectly categorized $98,963 in expenditures related to the State’s juvenile correctional facility as subrecipient expenditures instead of direct expenditures. Context: In fiscal year 2024: • CNC expenditures totaled approximately $68 million. • noncash assistance totaling $1.2 million was not reported to OSC by the Department for inclusion on the SEFA. Noncash assistance for CNC totaled $6.2 million. Cause: • Lack of policies and procedures relating to Department SEFA submissions to OSC • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: Inaccurate reporting of expenditure amounts on the SEFA, which is submitted to the Federal government, may result in incorrect information used for programmatic, policy, or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement policies and procedures that require a comprehensive review of SEFA schedules prior to submission to OSC. In addition, we recommend enhanced oversight of policies and procedures to ensure they are consistently applied and the SEFA is accurate and complete. Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The SEFA Review Procedure has been updated to include more specific information regarding the calculation of amounts reported for the Special Milk Program and noncash assistance and the classification of payments made to a school as direct payments rather than subrecipient expenditures. Contact: Nicole Denis, Director of Finance, DOE, 207-530-2161 (State Number: 24-1203-01)

(2024-034) Title: Internal control over the submission of CNC Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards information needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.502 and .510; 7 CFR 250.58(e); U.S. Department of Agriculture Policy No. FD-104 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must prepare a Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for the period covered by the State’s financial statements which must include the total Federal awards expended, including distribution or use of food commodities. Federal non-cash assistance, such as food commodities, must be valued at fair market value at the time of receipt or the assessed value provided by the Federal Agency. For a cluster of programs, the SEFA must list individual Federal programs within the cluster. In meeting the commodity offer value of donated foods for the school food authority, the distributing agency must use the cost-per-pound donated food price posted annually by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the most recently published cost-per-pound price in the USDA donated foods catalog, and/or a rolling average of the USDA prices. Each distributing or recipient agency must choose a method of valuing USDA donated foods for audit purposes. In most cases, it is recommended that a distributing or recipient agency use one of the options listed in 7 CFR 250.58(e). Once a method of assigning value to USDA donated foods is selected, it must be used consistently in all its audit activities and the State must maintain a record of the means of valuing donated foods for such purposes. Condition: The Department must complete and submit exhibits and related schedules to the Office of the State Controller (OSC) at the close of each fiscal year to report Federal award information for the Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) for inclusion on the State’s SEFA. OSC is responsible for compiling this information on behalf of the State. The Department submitted exhibits to OSC that: • incorrectly excluded $1.2 million of fresh food distributed to subrecipients and additional commodity items received. • incorrectly reported $4,481 of non-cash food assistance under ALN 10.555 National School Lunch Program that should have been reported under ALN 10.559 Summer Food Service Program. • incorrectly excluded $256 of expenditures under ALN 10.556 Special Milk Program. • incorrectly categorized $98,963 in expenditures related to the State’s juvenile correctional facility as subrecipient expenditures instead of direct expenditures. Context: In fiscal year 2024: • CNC expenditures totaled approximately $68 million. • noncash assistance totaling $1.2 million was not reported to OSC by the Department for inclusion on the SEFA. Noncash assistance for CNC totaled $6.2 million. Cause: • Lack of policies and procedures relating to Department SEFA submissions to OSC • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: Inaccurate reporting of expenditure amounts on the SEFA, which is submitted to the Federal government, may result in incorrect information used for programmatic, policy, or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement policies and procedures that require a comprehensive review of SEFA schedules prior to submission to OSC. In addition, we recommend enhanced oversight of policies and procedures to ensure they are consistently applied and the SEFA is accurate and complete. Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The SEFA Review Procedure has been updated to include more specific information regarding the calculation of amounts reported for the Special Milk Program and noncash assistance and the classification of payments made to a school as direct payments rather than subrecipient expenditures. Contact: Nicole Denis, Director of Finance, DOE, 207-530-2161 (State Number: 24-1203-01)

(2024-034) Title: Internal control over the submission of CNC Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards information needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.502 and .510; 7 CFR 250.58(e); U.S. Department of Agriculture Policy No. FD-104 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must prepare a Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for the period covered by the State’s financial statements which must include the total Federal awards expended, including distribution or use of food commodities. Federal non-cash assistance, such as food commodities, must be valued at fair market value at the time of receipt or the assessed value provided by the Federal Agency. For a cluster of programs, the SEFA must list individual Federal programs within the cluster. In meeting the commodity offer value of donated foods for the school food authority, the distributing agency must use the cost-per-pound donated food price posted annually by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the most recently published cost-per-pound price in the USDA donated foods catalog, and/or a rolling average of the USDA prices. Each distributing or recipient agency must choose a method of valuing USDA donated foods for audit purposes. In most cases, it is recommended that a distributing or recipient agency use one of the options listed in 7 CFR 250.58(e). Once a method of assigning value to USDA donated foods is selected, it must be used consistently in all its audit activities and the State must maintain a record of the means of valuing donated foods for such purposes. Condition: The Department must complete and submit exhibits and related schedules to the Office of the State Controller (OSC) at the close of each fiscal year to report Federal award information for the Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) for inclusion on the State’s SEFA. OSC is responsible for compiling this information on behalf of the State. The Department submitted exhibits to OSC that: • incorrectly excluded $1.2 million of fresh food distributed to subrecipients and additional commodity items received. • incorrectly reported $4,481 of non-cash food assistance under ALN 10.555 National School Lunch Program that should have been reported under ALN 10.559 Summer Food Service Program. • incorrectly excluded $256 of expenditures under ALN 10.556 Special Milk Program. • incorrectly categorized $98,963 in expenditures related to the State’s juvenile correctional facility as subrecipient expenditures instead of direct expenditures. Context: In fiscal year 2024: • CNC expenditures totaled approximately $68 million. • noncash assistance totaling $1.2 million was not reported to OSC by the Department for inclusion on the SEFA. Noncash assistance for CNC totaled $6.2 million. Cause: • Lack of policies and procedures relating to Department SEFA submissions to OSC • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: Inaccurate reporting of expenditure amounts on the SEFA, which is submitted to the Federal government, may result in incorrect information used for programmatic, policy, or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement policies and procedures that require a comprehensive review of SEFA schedules prior to submission to OSC. In addition, we recommend enhanced oversight of policies and procedures to ensure they are consistently applied and the SEFA is accurate and complete. Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The SEFA Review Procedure has been updated to include more specific information regarding the calculation of amounts reported for the Special Milk Program and noncash assistance and the classification of payments made to a school as direct payments rather than subrecipient expenditures. Contact: Nicole Denis, Director of Finance, DOE, 207-530-2161 (State Number: 24-1203-01)

(2024-034) Title: Internal control over the submission of CNC Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards information needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.502 and .510; 7 CFR 250.58(e); U.S. Department of Agriculture Policy No. FD-104 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must prepare a Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for the period covered by the State’s financial statements which must include the total Federal awards expended, including distribution or use of food commodities. Federal non-cash assistance, such as food commodities, must be valued at fair market value at the time of receipt or the assessed value provided by the Federal Agency. For a cluster of programs, the SEFA must list individual Federal programs within the cluster. In meeting the commodity offer value of donated foods for the school food authority, the distributing agency must use the cost-per-pound donated food price posted annually by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the most recently published cost-per-pound price in the USDA donated foods catalog, and/or a rolling average of the USDA prices. Each distributing or recipient agency must choose a method of valuing USDA donated foods for audit purposes. In most cases, it is recommended that a distributing or recipient agency use one of the options listed in 7 CFR 250.58(e). Once a method of assigning value to USDA donated foods is selected, it must be used consistently in all its audit activities and the State must maintain a record of the means of valuing donated foods for such purposes. Condition: The Department must complete and submit exhibits and related schedules to the Office of the State Controller (OSC) at the close of each fiscal year to report Federal award information for the Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) for inclusion on the State’s SEFA. OSC is responsible for compiling this information on behalf of the State. The Department submitted exhibits to OSC that: • incorrectly excluded $1.2 million of fresh food distributed to subrecipients and additional commodity items received. • incorrectly reported $4,481 of non-cash food assistance under ALN 10.555 National School Lunch Program that should have been reported under ALN 10.559 Summer Food Service Program. • incorrectly excluded $256 of expenditures under ALN 10.556 Special Milk Program. • incorrectly categorized $98,963 in expenditures related to the State’s juvenile correctional facility as subrecipient expenditures instead of direct expenditures. Context: In fiscal year 2024: • CNC expenditures totaled approximately $68 million. • noncash assistance totaling $1.2 million was not reported to OSC by the Department for inclusion on the SEFA. Noncash assistance for CNC totaled $6.2 million. Cause: • Lack of policies and procedures relating to Department SEFA submissions to OSC • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: Inaccurate reporting of expenditure amounts on the SEFA, which is submitted to the Federal government, may result in incorrect information used for programmatic, policy, or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement policies and procedures that require a comprehensive review of SEFA schedules prior to submission to OSC. In addition, we recommend enhanced oversight of policies and procedures to ensure they are consistently applied and the SEFA is accurate and complete. Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The SEFA Review Procedure has been updated to include more specific information regarding the calculation of amounts reported for the Special Milk Program and noncash assistance and the classification of payments made to a school as direct payments rather than subrecipient expenditures. Contact: Nicole Denis, Director of Finance, DOE, 207-530-2161 (State Number: 24-1203-01)

(2024-035) Title: Internal control over CNC donated food inventory needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Special tests and provisions Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 7 CFR 250.12 and .19 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. On an annual basis, the distributing agency must conduct a physical review of donated food inventories at all storage facilities used by the distributing agency and must reconcile physical and book inventories of donated foods. The distributing agency must ensure that a separate inventory record of donated foods is maintained. The distributing agency’s system of inventory management must ensure that donated foods are distributed in a timely manner and in optimal condition. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster includes the School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Special Milk Program for Children, Summer Food Service Program, and the Fresh Fruits and Vegetable Program. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools and summer food programs, to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools, and to encourage consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department receives donated foods from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for distribution to School Food Authorities (SFAs) and sponsors participating in the National School Lunch Program or the Summer Food Service Program. In fiscal year 2022, the Department implemented a new inventory system for tracking donated foods. In March 2024, the Department identified that inventory tracking within the Child Nutrition Program system (CNPWeb) was not functioning correctly and order quantities were duplicated. As a result, accurate inventory records were not maintained during fiscal year 2024. The Department submitted a ticket to remediate the system error, and the USDA Food Coordinator manually adjusted inventory records to reflect the duplicated items. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 11 donated food items to ensure that the Department had properly tracked the items. OSA reviewed the manually-adjusted USDA food requests, inventory receipts, and distributions made to SFAs and sponsors and to verify that the documentation corresponded to information in the inventory system and physical inventory counts, and found four instances where the adjusted records did not agree, as follows: • Manually-adjusted system inventory records for: o one food item identified 26 cases less than OSA calculated, and the physical inventory count indicated 27 cases less than the manually-adjusted system inventory records. o one food item requested through CNPWeb exceeded the number of cases available due to the system edit check for ordering in excess of items available was not implemented. o one food item identified three cases less than OSA calculated, and the physical inventory documentation indicated one less case than the manually-adjusted system inventory records. • Physical inventory documentation for one food item identified two cases more than OSA calculated and two cases more than manually-adjusted system inventory records. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. OSA performed a physical inventory inspection and identified that discrepancies existed between the manually-adjusted system inventory items and the physical items on hand for 36 of the 41 food items tested. The Department did not document justification for the inventory discrepancies. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the Department distributed $6.3 million of USDA donated foods to SFAs and sponsors. Cause: Lack of oversight to ensure that: • the newly implemented inventory tracking system is properly configured; and • review, remediation and justification of inventory discrepancies is documented. Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Inaccurate reporting of noncash Federal awards on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards • Theft, loss, or damage of inventory may go undetected. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • review the configuration of the inventory tracking system to remediate variances; • regularly reconcile system inventory records to physical inventory counts; and • document the justification of any inventory discrepancies. Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. CNPWeb is still not working correctly, and there were too many errors during the physical inventory. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 (State Number: 24-1203-03)

(2024-035) Title: Internal control over CNC donated food inventory needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Special tests and provisions Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 7 CFR 250.12 and .19 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. On an annual basis, the distributing agency must conduct a physical review of donated food inventories at all storage facilities used by the distributing agency and must reconcile physical and book inventories of donated foods. The distributing agency must ensure that a separate inventory record of donated foods is maintained. The distributing agency’s system of inventory management must ensure that donated foods are distributed in a timely manner and in optimal condition. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster includes the School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Special Milk Program for Children, Summer Food Service Program, and the Fresh Fruits and Vegetable Program. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools and summer food programs, to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools, and to encourage consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department receives donated foods from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for distribution to School Food Authorities (SFAs) and sponsors participating in the National School Lunch Program or the Summer Food Service Program. In fiscal year 2022, the Department implemented a new inventory system for tracking donated foods. In March 2024, the Department identified that inventory tracking within the Child Nutrition Program system (CNPWeb) was not functioning correctly and order quantities were duplicated. As a result, accurate inventory records were not maintained during fiscal year 2024. The Department submitted a ticket to remediate the system error, and the USDA Food Coordinator manually adjusted inventory records to reflect the duplicated items. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 11 donated food items to ensure that the Department had properly tracked the items. OSA reviewed the manually-adjusted USDA food requests, inventory receipts, and distributions made to SFAs and sponsors and to verify that the documentation corresponded to information in the inventory system and physical inventory counts, and found four instances where the adjusted records did not agree, as follows: • Manually-adjusted system inventory records for: o one food item identified 26 cases less than OSA calculated, and the physical inventory count indicated 27 cases less than the manually-adjusted system inventory records. o one food item requested through CNPWeb exceeded the number of cases available due to the system edit check for ordering in excess of items available was not implemented. o one food item identified three cases less than OSA calculated, and the physical inventory documentation indicated one less case than the manually-adjusted system inventory records. • Physical inventory documentation for one food item identified two cases more than OSA calculated and two cases more than manually-adjusted system inventory records. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. OSA performed a physical inventory inspection and identified that discrepancies existed between the manually-adjusted system inventory items and the physical items on hand for 36 of the 41 food items tested. The Department did not document justification for the inventory discrepancies. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the Department distributed $6.3 million of USDA donated foods to SFAs and sponsors. Cause: Lack of oversight to ensure that: • the newly implemented inventory tracking system is properly configured; and • review, remediation and justification of inventory discrepancies is documented. Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Inaccurate reporting of noncash Federal awards on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards • Theft, loss, or damage of inventory may go undetected. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • review the configuration of the inventory tracking system to remediate variances; • regularly reconcile system inventory records to physical inventory counts; and • document the justification of any inventory discrepancies. Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. CNPWeb is still not working correctly, and there were too many errors during the physical inventory. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 (State Number: 24-1203-03)

(2024-035) Title: Internal control over CNC donated food inventory needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Special tests and provisions Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 7 CFR 250.12 and .19 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. On an annual basis, the distributing agency must conduct a physical review of donated food inventories at all storage facilities used by the distributing agency and must reconcile physical and book inventories of donated foods. The distributing agency must ensure that a separate inventory record of donated foods is maintained. The distributing agency’s system of inventory management must ensure that donated foods are distributed in a timely manner and in optimal condition. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster includes the School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Special Milk Program for Children, Summer Food Service Program, and the Fresh Fruits and Vegetable Program. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools and summer food programs, to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools, and to encourage consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department receives donated foods from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for distribution to School Food Authorities (SFAs) and sponsors participating in the National School Lunch Program or the Summer Food Service Program. In fiscal year 2022, the Department implemented a new inventory system for tracking donated foods. In March 2024, the Department identified that inventory tracking within the Child Nutrition Program system (CNPWeb) was not functioning correctly and order quantities were duplicated. As a result, accurate inventory records were not maintained during fiscal year 2024. The Department submitted a ticket to remediate the system error, and the USDA Food Coordinator manually adjusted inventory records to reflect the duplicated items. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 11 donated food items to ensure that the Department had properly tracked the items. OSA reviewed the manually-adjusted USDA food requests, inventory receipts, and distributions made to SFAs and sponsors and to verify that the documentation corresponded to information in the inventory system and physical inventory counts, and found four instances where the adjusted records did not agree, as follows: • Manually-adjusted system inventory records for: o one food item identified 26 cases less than OSA calculated, and the physical inventory count indicated 27 cases less than the manually-adjusted system inventory records. o one food item requested through CNPWeb exceeded the number of cases available due to the system edit check for ordering in excess of items available was not implemented. o one food item identified three cases less than OSA calculated, and the physical inventory documentation indicated one less case than the manually-adjusted system inventory records. • Physical inventory documentation for one food item identified two cases more than OSA calculated and two cases more than manually-adjusted system inventory records. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. OSA performed a physical inventory inspection and identified that discrepancies existed between the manually-adjusted system inventory items and the physical items on hand for 36 of the 41 food items tested. The Department did not document justification for the inventory discrepancies. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the Department distributed $6.3 million of USDA donated foods to SFAs and sponsors. Cause: Lack of oversight to ensure that: • the newly implemented inventory tracking system is properly configured; and • review, remediation and justification of inventory discrepancies is documented. Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Inaccurate reporting of noncash Federal awards on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards • Theft, loss, or damage of inventory may go undetected. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • review the configuration of the inventory tracking system to remediate variances; • regularly reconcile system inventory records to physical inventory counts; and • document the justification of any inventory discrepancies. Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. CNPWeb is still not working correctly, and there were too many errors during the physical inventory. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 (State Number: 24-1203-03)

(2024-035) Title: Internal control over CNC donated food inventory needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Special tests and provisions Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 7 CFR 250.12 and .19 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. On an annual basis, the distributing agency must conduct a physical review of donated food inventories at all storage facilities used by the distributing agency and must reconcile physical and book inventories of donated foods. The distributing agency must ensure that a separate inventory record of donated foods is maintained. The distributing agency’s system of inventory management must ensure that donated foods are distributed in a timely manner and in optimal condition. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster includes the School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Special Milk Program for Children, Summer Food Service Program, and the Fresh Fruits and Vegetable Program. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools and summer food programs, to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools, and to encourage consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department receives donated foods from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for distribution to School Food Authorities (SFAs) and sponsors participating in the National School Lunch Program or the Summer Food Service Program. In fiscal year 2022, the Department implemented a new inventory system for tracking donated foods. In March 2024, the Department identified that inventory tracking within the Child Nutrition Program system (CNPWeb) was not functioning correctly and order quantities were duplicated. As a result, accurate inventory records were not maintained during fiscal year 2024. The Department submitted a ticket to remediate the system error, and the USDA Food Coordinator manually adjusted inventory records to reflect the duplicated items. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 11 donated food items to ensure that the Department had properly tracked the items. OSA reviewed the manually-adjusted USDA food requests, inventory receipts, and distributions made to SFAs and sponsors and to verify that the documentation corresponded to information in the inventory system and physical inventory counts, and found four instances where the adjusted records did not agree, as follows: • Manually-adjusted system inventory records for: o one food item identified 26 cases less than OSA calculated, and the physical inventory count indicated 27 cases less than the manually-adjusted system inventory records. o one food item requested through CNPWeb exceeded the number of cases available due to the system edit check for ordering in excess of items available was not implemented. o one food item identified three cases less than OSA calculated, and the physical inventory documentation indicated one less case than the manually-adjusted system inventory records. • Physical inventory documentation for one food item identified two cases more than OSA calculated and two cases more than manually-adjusted system inventory records. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. OSA performed a physical inventory inspection and identified that discrepancies existed between the manually-adjusted system inventory items and the physical items on hand for 36 of the 41 food items tested. The Department did not document justification for the inventory discrepancies. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the Department distributed $6.3 million of USDA donated foods to SFAs and sponsors. Cause: Lack of oversight to ensure that: • the newly implemented inventory tracking system is properly configured; and • review, remediation and justification of inventory discrepancies is documented. Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Inaccurate reporting of noncash Federal awards on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards • Theft, loss, or damage of inventory may go undetected. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • review the configuration of the inventory tracking system to remediate variances; • regularly reconcile system inventory records to physical inventory counts; and • document the justification of any inventory discrepancies. Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. CNPWeb is still not working correctly, and there were too many errors during the physical inventory. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 (State Number: 24-1203-03)

(2024-035) Title: Internal control over CNC donated food inventory needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Special tests and provisions Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 7 CFR 250.12 and .19 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. On an annual basis, the distributing agency must conduct a physical review of donated food inventories at all storage facilities used by the distributing agency and must reconcile physical and book inventories of donated foods. The distributing agency must ensure that a separate inventory record of donated foods is maintained. The distributing agency’s system of inventory management must ensure that donated foods are distributed in a timely manner and in optimal condition. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster includes the School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Special Milk Program for Children, Summer Food Service Program, and the Fresh Fruits and Vegetable Program. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools and summer food programs, to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools, and to encourage consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department receives donated foods from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for distribution to School Food Authorities (SFAs) and sponsors participating in the National School Lunch Program or the Summer Food Service Program. In fiscal year 2022, the Department implemented a new inventory system for tracking donated foods. In March 2024, the Department identified that inventory tracking within the Child Nutrition Program system (CNPWeb) was not functioning correctly and order quantities were duplicated. As a result, accurate inventory records were not maintained during fiscal year 2024. The Department submitted a ticket to remediate the system error, and the USDA Food Coordinator manually adjusted inventory records to reflect the duplicated items. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 11 donated food items to ensure that the Department had properly tracked the items. OSA reviewed the manually-adjusted USDA food requests, inventory receipts, and distributions made to SFAs and sponsors and to verify that the documentation corresponded to information in the inventory system and physical inventory counts, and found four instances where the adjusted records did not agree, as follows: • Manually-adjusted system inventory records for: o one food item identified 26 cases less than OSA calculated, and the physical inventory count indicated 27 cases less than the manually-adjusted system inventory records. o one food item requested through CNPWeb exceeded the number of cases available due to the system edit check for ordering in excess of items available was not implemented. o one food item identified three cases less than OSA calculated, and the physical inventory documentation indicated one less case than the manually-adjusted system inventory records. • Physical inventory documentation for one food item identified two cases more than OSA calculated and two cases more than manually-adjusted system inventory records. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. OSA performed a physical inventory inspection and identified that discrepancies existed between the manually-adjusted system inventory items and the physical items on hand for 36 of the 41 food items tested. The Department did not document justification for the inventory discrepancies. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the Department distributed $6.3 million of USDA donated foods to SFAs and sponsors. Cause: Lack of oversight to ensure that: • the newly implemented inventory tracking system is properly configured; and • review, remediation and justification of inventory discrepancies is documented. Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Inaccurate reporting of noncash Federal awards on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards • Theft, loss, or damage of inventory may go undetected. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • review the configuration of the inventory tracking system to remediate variances; • regularly reconcile system inventory records to physical inventory counts; and • document the justification of any inventory discrepancies. Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. CNPWeb is still not working correctly, and there were too many errors during the physical inventory. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 (State Number: 24-1203-03)

(2024-036) Title: Internal control over CNC cash management needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Education Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services General Government Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Cash management Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 31 CFR 205.33; State Administrative and Accounting Manual (SAAM) Section 50.40.80 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must minimize the time between the drawdown of Federal funds and the disbursement of these funds for Federal program purposes. The timing and amount of fund transfers must be as close as administratively feasible to the Department’s actual cash outlay for program costs. Section 50.40.80 of the SAAM has defined administratively feasible as no more than seven business days. Condition: Child Nutrition Services (CNS) is responsible for approving monthly Claims For Reimbursement (CFRs) submitted by School Food Authorities (SFAs). The Department of Administrative and Financial Services’ General Government Service Center (GGSC) is responsible for the drawdown of Federal funds to pay for Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) program expenditures. GGSC utilizes a batch report of CFR amounts approved through the Child Nutrition Program system (CNPWeb) for the drawdown. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) performed analytical procedures over CFRs and identified two reimbursements that exceeded average CFRs. Further procedures found: • one payment was the result of the SFA erroneously claiming all meals served as free meals, and therefore, paid entirely with Federal funds. The SFA subsequently modified the CFR and claimed only 16 percent of meals served as free, resulting in an overpayment of approximately $113,000. To recover the overpayment, CNS subtracted a portion from subsequent monthly claims with the final recoupment occurring in April 2024. As a result, the SFA had excess cash on hand from November 2023 through April 2024. • the other payment was the result of a rejected payment. The November 2023 payment intended for September and October CFRs was rejected by the State’s accounting system. As a result, the December payment to the SFA included CFRs from September through November. The drawdown of Federal funds for the September and October CFRs occurred in November; however, the SFA was not paid until December. GGSC and CNS did not have controls in place to monitor and ensure that batch payments were processed timely. As a result, the State had excess cash on hand for one month. Context: CNS processed $61.8 million in CFRs in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • A revision to a CFR within 60 days that does not increase total reimbursement does not trigger an edit check in the CNPWeb system for manual review. The edit check function is designed to only check overall increases or decreases in the total CFR; therefore, the overpayment of Federal funds went undetected because CNS supplements the Federal meal reimbursement with State funds. Effect: • The Federal government may impose more stringent program-specific cash management requirements based on noncompliance. • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that CNS: • continue to work with GGSC to ensure that batch payments approved for processing are paid timely; and • adjust edit checks in the CNPWeb system to identify changes in Federal and State funding rather than using the total claim amount in order to prevent overpayments. Corrective Action Plan: See F-18 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. The Department acknowledges that improvements could be made over the controls to ensure the timely processing of batch payments. As a result, new procedures have been developed and implemented to confirm that batch payments are processed without delay. However, the Department disagrees with the characterization of noncompliance with cash management requirement regarding the overpayment recoupment and believes the current controls effectively addressed the issue. The CNPWeb system already includes edit checks that track, offset, and reconcile adjustments between state and federal payments within the federal fiscal year, ensuring compliance with both 7 CFR 210.9 and 2 CFR 200.302. The $113,000 overpayment was fully recouped within the same fiscal year through systematic monthly offsets. These offsets occurred within the fund account (school lunch), and the balance was fully corrected through the current claims without any risk of misallocation. All actions were taken within CNPWeb, with no need for intervention outside of the system. 7 CFR 210.9 provides guidance on maintaining appropriate balances for school-level accounts and is not intended to govern isolated errors that were promptly detected and resolved through established program procedures. The Department does not believe that a three-month excess threshold applies in this case, as the error was corrected in accordance with program requirements, and the funds were reconciled in a timely manner. The Department maintains that the existing internal controls, along with the newly implemented procedures, adequately address the identified issues. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department’s Management Response incorrectly cites 7 CFR 210.9 which outlines requirements for the SFA, not the State. The applicable criteria for the compliance exceptions is 31 CFR 205.33 which is referenced in the finding Criteria. The Department did not return excess funds to the Federal government, nor gain approval to retain the funds when the overpayment was identified. This resulted in excess cash on hand at the Department level and thus, noncompliance with 31 CFR 205.33. The Department is misinterpreting that the return of Federal funds at the State level is only required when the funds are returned to the Department from the SFA. Therefore, the Department does not have adequate controls over cash management requirements. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1203-07)

(2024-036) Title: Internal control over CNC cash management needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Education Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services General Government Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Cash management Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 31 CFR 205.33; State Administrative and Accounting Manual (SAAM) Section 50.40.80 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must minimize the time between the drawdown of Federal funds and the disbursement of these funds for Federal program purposes. The timing and amount of fund transfers must be as close as administratively feasible to the Department’s actual cash outlay for program costs. Section 50.40.80 of the SAAM has defined administratively feasible as no more than seven business days. Condition: Child Nutrition Services (CNS) is responsible for approving monthly Claims For Reimbursement (CFRs) submitted by School Food Authorities (SFAs). The Department of Administrative and Financial Services’ General Government Service Center (GGSC) is responsible for the drawdown of Federal funds to pay for Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) program expenditures. GGSC utilizes a batch report of CFR amounts approved through the Child Nutrition Program system (CNPWeb) for the drawdown. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) performed analytical procedures over CFRs and identified two reimbursements that exceeded average CFRs. Further procedures found: • one payment was the result of the SFA erroneously claiming all meals served as free meals, and therefore, paid entirely with Federal funds. The SFA subsequently modified the CFR and claimed only 16 percent of meals served as free, resulting in an overpayment of approximately $113,000. To recover the overpayment, CNS subtracted a portion from subsequent monthly claims with the final recoupment occurring in April 2024. As a result, the SFA had excess cash on hand from November 2023 through April 2024. • the other payment was the result of a rejected payment. The November 2023 payment intended for September and October CFRs was rejected by the State’s accounting system. As a result, the December payment to the SFA included CFRs from September through November. The drawdown of Federal funds for the September and October CFRs occurred in November; however, the SFA was not paid until December. GGSC and CNS did not have controls in place to monitor and ensure that batch payments were processed timely. As a result, the State had excess cash on hand for one month. Context: CNS processed $61.8 million in CFRs in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • A revision to a CFR within 60 days that does not increase total reimbursement does not trigger an edit check in the CNPWeb system for manual review. The edit check function is designed to only check overall increases or decreases in the total CFR; therefore, the overpayment of Federal funds went undetected because CNS supplements the Federal meal reimbursement with State funds. Effect: • The Federal government may impose more stringent program-specific cash management requirements based on noncompliance. • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that CNS: • continue to work with GGSC to ensure that batch payments approved for processing are paid timely; and • adjust edit checks in the CNPWeb system to identify changes in Federal and State funding rather than using the total claim amount in order to prevent overpayments. Corrective Action Plan: See F-18 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. The Department acknowledges that improvements could be made over the controls to ensure the timely processing of batch payments. As a result, new procedures have been developed and implemented to confirm that batch payments are processed without delay. However, the Department disagrees with the characterization of noncompliance with cash management requirement regarding the overpayment recoupment and believes the current controls effectively addressed the issue. The CNPWeb system already includes edit checks that track, offset, and reconcile adjustments between state and federal payments within the federal fiscal year, ensuring compliance with both 7 CFR 210.9 and 2 CFR 200.302. The $113,000 overpayment was fully recouped within the same fiscal year through systematic monthly offsets. These offsets occurred within the fund account (school lunch), and the balance was fully corrected through the current claims without any risk of misallocation. All actions were taken within CNPWeb, with no need for intervention outside of the system. 7 CFR 210.9 provides guidance on maintaining appropriate balances for school-level accounts and is not intended to govern isolated errors that were promptly detected and resolved through established program procedures. The Department does not believe that a three-month excess threshold applies in this case, as the error was corrected in accordance with program requirements, and the funds were reconciled in a timely manner. The Department maintains that the existing internal controls, along with the newly implemented procedures, adequately address the identified issues. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department’s Management Response incorrectly cites 7 CFR 210.9 which outlines requirements for the SFA, not the State. The applicable criteria for the compliance exceptions is 31 CFR 205.33 which is referenced in the finding Criteria. The Department did not return excess funds to the Federal government, nor gain approval to retain the funds when the overpayment was identified. This resulted in excess cash on hand at the Department level and thus, noncompliance with 31 CFR 205.33. The Department is misinterpreting that the return of Federal funds at the State level is only required when the funds are returned to the Department from the SFA. Therefore, the Department does not have adequate controls over cash management requirements. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1203-07)

(2024-036) Title: Internal control over CNC cash management needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Education Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services General Government Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Cash management Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 31 CFR 205.33; State Administrative and Accounting Manual (SAAM) Section 50.40.80 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must minimize the time between the drawdown of Federal funds and the disbursement of these funds for Federal program purposes. The timing and amount of fund transfers must be as close as administratively feasible to the Department’s actual cash outlay for program costs. Section 50.40.80 of the SAAM has defined administratively feasible as no more than seven business days. Condition: Child Nutrition Services (CNS) is responsible for approving monthly Claims For Reimbursement (CFRs) submitted by School Food Authorities (SFAs). The Department of Administrative and Financial Services’ General Government Service Center (GGSC) is responsible for the drawdown of Federal funds to pay for Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) program expenditures. GGSC utilizes a batch report of CFR amounts approved through the Child Nutrition Program system (CNPWeb) for the drawdown. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) performed analytical procedures over CFRs and identified two reimbursements that exceeded average CFRs. Further procedures found: • one payment was the result of the SFA erroneously claiming all meals served as free meals, and therefore, paid entirely with Federal funds. The SFA subsequently modified the CFR and claimed only 16 percent of meals served as free, resulting in an overpayment of approximately $113,000. To recover the overpayment, CNS subtracted a portion from subsequent monthly claims with the final recoupment occurring in April 2024. As a result, the SFA had excess cash on hand from November 2023 through April 2024. • the other payment was the result of a rejected payment. The November 2023 payment intended for September and October CFRs was rejected by the State’s accounting system. As a result, the December payment to the SFA included CFRs from September through November. The drawdown of Federal funds for the September and October CFRs occurred in November; however, the SFA was not paid until December. GGSC and CNS did not have controls in place to monitor and ensure that batch payments were processed timely. As a result, the State had excess cash on hand for one month. Context: CNS processed $61.8 million in CFRs in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • A revision to a CFR within 60 days that does not increase total reimbursement does not trigger an edit check in the CNPWeb system for manual review. The edit check function is designed to only check overall increases or decreases in the total CFR; therefore, the overpayment of Federal funds went undetected because CNS supplements the Federal meal reimbursement with State funds. Effect: • The Federal government may impose more stringent program-specific cash management requirements based on noncompliance. • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that CNS: • continue to work with GGSC to ensure that batch payments approved for processing are paid timely; and • adjust edit checks in the CNPWeb system to identify changes in Federal and State funding rather than using the total claim amount in order to prevent overpayments. Corrective Action Plan: See F-18 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. The Department acknowledges that improvements could be made over the controls to ensure the timely processing of batch payments. As a result, new procedures have been developed and implemented to confirm that batch payments are processed without delay. However, the Department disagrees with the characterization of noncompliance with cash management requirement regarding the overpayment recoupment and believes the current controls effectively addressed the issue. The CNPWeb system already includes edit checks that track, offset, and reconcile adjustments between state and federal payments within the federal fiscal year, ensuring compliance with both 7 CFR 210.9 and 2 CFR 200.302. The $113,000 overpayment was fully recouped within the same fiscal year through systematic monthly offsets. These offsets occurred within the fund account (school lunch), and the balance was fully corrected through the current claims without any risk of misallocation. All actions were taken within CNPWeb, with no need for intervention outside of the system. 7 CFR 210.9 provides guidance on maintaining appropriate balances for school-level accounts and is not intended to govern isolated errors that were promptly detected and resolved through established program procedures. The Department does not believe that a three-month excess threshold applies in this case, as the error was corrected in accordance with program requirements, and the funds were reconciled in a timely manner. The Department maintains that the existing internal controls, along with the newly implemented procedures, adequately address the identified issues. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department’s Management Response incorrectly cites 7 CFR 210.9 which outlines requirements for the SFA, not the State. The applicable criteria for the compliance exceptions is 31 CFR 205.33 which is referenced in the finding Criteria. The Department did not return excess funds to the Federal government, nor gain approval to retain the funds when the overpayment was identified. This resulted in excess cash on hand at the Department level and thus, noncompliance with 31 CFR 205.33. The Department is misinterpreting that the return of Federal funds at the State level is only required when the funds are returned to the Department from the SFA. Therefore, the Department does not have adequate controls over cash management requirements. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1203-07)

(2024-036) Title: Internal control over CNC cash management needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Education Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services General Government Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Cash management Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 31 CFR 205.33; State Administrative and Accounting Manual (SAAM) Section 50.40.80 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must minimize the time between the drawdown of Federal funds and the disbursement of these funds for Federal program purposes. The timing and amount of fund transfers must be as close as administratively feasible to the Department’s actual cash outlay for program costs. Section 50.40.80 of the SAAM has defined administratively feasible as no more than seven business days. Condition: Child Nutrition Services (CNS) is responsible for approving monthly Claims For Reimbursement (CFRs) submitted by School Food Authorities (SFAs). The Department of Administrative and Financial Services’ General Government Service Center (GGSC) is responsible for the drawdown of Federal funds to pay for Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) program expenditures. GGSC utilizes a batch report of CFR amounts approved through the Child Nutrition Program system (CNPWeb) for the drawdown. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) performed analytical procedures over CFRs and identified two reimbursements that exceeded average CFRs. Further procedures found: • one payment was the result of the SFA erroneously claiming all meals served as free meals, and therefore, paid entirely with Federal funds. The SFA subsequently modified the CFR and claimed only 16 percent of meals served as free, resulting in an overpayment of approximately $113,000. To recover the overpayment, CNS subtracted a portion from subsequent monthly claims with the final recoupment occurring in April 2024. As a result, the SFA had excess cash on hand from November 2023 through April 2024. • the other payment was the result of a rejected payment. The November 2023 payment intended for September and October CFRs was rejected by the State’s accounting system. As a result, the December payment to the SFA included CFRs from September through November. The drawdown of Federal funds for the September and October CFRs occurred in November; however, the SFA was not paid until December. GGSC and CNS did not have controls in place to monitor and ensure that batch payments were processed timely. As a result, the State had excess cash on hand for one month. Context: CNS processed $61.8 million in CFRs in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • A revision to a CFR within 60 days that does not increase total reimbursement does not trigger an edit check in the CNPWeb system for manual review. The edit check function is designed to only check overall increases or decreases in the total CFR; therefore, the overpayment of Federal funds went undetected because CNS supplements the Federal meal reimbursement with State funds. Effect: • The Federal government may impose more stringent program-specific cash management requirements based on noncompliance. • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that CNS: • continue to work with GGSC to ensure that batch payments approved for processing are paid timely; and • adjust edit checks in the CNPWeb system to identify changes in Federal and State funding rather than using the total claim amount in order to prevent overpayments. Corrective Action Plan: See F-18 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. The Department acknowledges that improvements could be made over the controls to ensure the timely processing of batch payments. As a result, new procedures have been developed and implemented to confirm that batch payments are processed without delay. However, the Department disagrees with the characterization of noncompliance with cash management requirement regarding the overpayment recoupment and believes the current controls effectively addressed the issue. The CNPWeb system already includes edit checks that track, offset, and reconcile adjustments between state and federal payments within the federal fiscal year, ensuring compliance with both 7 CFR 210.9 and 2 CFR 200.302. The $113,000 overpayment was fully recouped within the same fiscal year through systematic monthly offsets. These offsets occurred within the fund account (school lunch), and the balance was fully corrected through the current claims without any risk of misallocation. All actions were taken within CNPWeb, with no need for intervention outside of the system. 7 CFR 210.9 provides guidance on maintaining appropriate balances for school-level accounts and is not intended to govern isolated errors that were promptly detected and resolved through established program procedures. The Department does not believe that a three-month excess threshold applies in this case, as the error was corrected in accordance with program requirements, and the funds were reconciled in a timely manner. The Department maintains that the existing internal controls, along with the newly implemented procedures, adequately address the identified issues. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department’s Management Response incorrectly cites 7 CFR 210.9 which outlines requirements for the SFA, not the State. The applicable criteria for the compliance exceptions is 31 CFR 205.33 which is referenced in the finding Criteria. The Department did not return excess funds to the Federal government, nor gain approval to retain the funds when the overpayment was identified. This resulted in excess cash on hand at the Department level and thus, noncompliance with 31 CFR 205.33. The Department is misinterpreting that the return of Federal funds at the State level is only required when the funds are returned to the Department from the SFA. Therefore, the Department does not have adequate controls over cash management requirements. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1203-07)

(2024-036) Title: Internal control over CNC cash management needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Education Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services General Government Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Cash management Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 31 CFR 205.33; State Administrative and Accounting Manual (SAAM) Section 50.40.80 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must minimize the time between the drawdown of Federal funds and the disbursement of these funds for Federal program purposes. The timing and amount of fund transfers must be as close as administratively feasible to the Department’s actual cash outlay for program costs. Section 50.40.80 of the SAAM has defined administratively feasible as no more than seven business days. Condition: Child Nutrition Services (CNS) is responsible for approving monthly Claims For Reimbursement (CFRs) submitted by School Food Authorities (SFAs). The Department of Administrative and Financial Services’ General Government Service Center (GGSC) is responsible for the drawdown of Federal funds to pay for Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) program expenditures. GGSC utilizes a batch report of CFR amounts approved through the Child Nutrition Program system (CNPWeb) for the drawdown. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) performed analytical procedures over CFRs and identified two reimbursements that exceeded average CFRs. Further procedures found: • one payment was the result of the SFA erroneously claiming all meals served as free meals, and therefore, paid entirely with Federal funds. The SFA subsequently modified the CFR and claimed only 16 percent of meals served as free, resulting in an overpayment of approximately $113,000. To recover the overpayment, CNS subtracted a portion from subsequent monthly claims with the final recoupment occurring in April 2024. As a result, the SFA had excess cash on hand from November 2023 through April 2024. • the other payment was the result of a rejected payment. The November 2023 payment intended for September and October CFRs was rejected by the State’s accounting system. As a result, the December payment to the SFA included CFRs from September through November. The drawdown of Federal funds for the September and October CFRs occurred in November; however, the SFA was not paid until December. GGSC and CNS did not have controls in place to monitor and ensure that batch payments were processed timely. As a result, the State had excess cash on hand for one month. Context: CNS processed $61.8 million in CFRs in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • A revision to a CFR within 60 days that does not increase total reimbursement does not trigger an edit check in the CNPWeb system for manual review. The edit check function is designed to only check overall increases or decreases in the total CFR; therefore, the overpayment of Federal funds went undetected because CNS supplements the Federal meal reimbursement with State funds. Effect: • The Federal government may impose more stringent program-specific cash management requirements based on noncompliance. • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that CNS: • continue to work with GGSC to ensure that batch payments approved for processing are paid timely; and • adjust edit checks in the CNPWeb system to identify changes in Federal and State funding rather than using the total claim amount in order to prevent overpayments. Corrective Action Plan: See F-18 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. The Department acknowledges that improvements could be made over the controls to ensure the timely processing of batch payments. As a result, new procedures have been developed and implemented to confirm that batch payments are processed without delay. However, the Department disagrees with the characterization of noncompliance with cash management requirement regarding the overpayment recoupment and believes the current controls effectively addressed the issue. The CNPWeb system already includes edit checks that track, offset, and reconcile adjustments between state and federal payments within the federal fiscal year, ensuring compliance with both 7 CFR 210.9 and 2 CFR 200.302. The $113,000 overpayment was fully recouped within the same fiscal year through systematic monthly offsets. These offsets occurred within the fund account (school lunch), and the balance was fully corrected through the current claims without any risk of misallocation. All actions were taken within CNPWeb, with no need for intervention outside of the system. 7 CFR 210.9 provides guidance on maintaining appropriate balances for school-level accounts and is not intended to govern isolated errors that were promptly detected and resolved through established program procedures. The Department does not believe that a three-month excess threshold applies in this case, as the error was corrected in accordance with program requirements, and the funds were reconciled in a timely manner. The Department maintains that the existing internal controls, along with the newly implemented procedures, adequately address the identified issues. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department’s Management Response incorrectly cites 7 CFR 210.9 which outlines requirements for the SFA, not the State. The applicable criteria for the compliance exceptions is 31 CFR 205.33 which is referenced in the finding Criteria. The Department did not return excess funds to the Federal government, nor gain approval to retain the funds when the overpayment was identified. This resulted in excess cash on hand at the Department level and thus, noncompliance with 31 CFR 205.33. The Department is misinterpreting that the return of Federal funds at the State level is only required when the funds are returned to the Department from the SFA. Therefore, the Department does not have adequate controls over cash management requirements. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1203-07)

(2024-037) Title: Internal control over WIC subrecipient cash management needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Division of Contract Management Maine Center for Disease Control & Prevention Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 10.557 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Cash management Subrecipient monitoring Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.305 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department is required to monitor cash drawdowns by their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the payment of Federal funds to the subrecipient and the subrecipient’s actual disbursement for program purposes is minimized. Condition: The Department’s Division of Contract Management (DCM) has three methods for providing payments to subrecipients: cost-settled, cost-settled by invoice, and fee-for-service subawards. • For cost-settled subawards, DCM procedures include making equal advance monthly payments and then reconciling those amounts to the quarterly financial reports submitted by the subrecipient. This procedure does not take into consideration the time elapsing between the payment of Federal funds to the subrecipient and the subrecipient’s actual disbursement for program purposes. • For “cost-settled by invoice” (reimbursement) subawards, DCM procedures do not require subrecipients to include supporting documentation with monthly requests for reimbursement nor do they request supporting documentation at a subsequent date. This procedure does not take into consideration the time elapsing between the payment of Federal funds to the subrecipient and the subrecipient’s actual disbursement for program purposes. • Cash management requirements are not applicable for fee-for-service subawards. Maine Center for Disease Control & Prevention (MeCDC) is responsible for ensuring the WIC program’s subrecipients comply with Federal requirements; however, MeCDC’s subrecipient monitoring procedures do not include review of subrecipient compliance with cash management requirements. All of WIC’s subawards are cost-settled. Therefore, DCM and MeCDC procedures do not support that subrecipient cash management is properly monitored as required by Federal regulations. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the Department provided $5.9 million to subrecipients from WIC grant funds totaling $22.8 million. Cause: • Lack of adequate subrecipient monitoring procedures • Lack of centralized oversight of subrecipient monitoring Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Federal programs may not be effectively and efficiently administered. • The Federal government may require the implementation of more stringent subrecipient cash management procedures. Recommendation: We recommend that MeCDC collaborate with DCM to implement monitoring procedures over subrecipient cash management requirements to ensure that the time elapsing between the payment of Federal funds to the subrecipient and the subrecipient’s actual disbursement for program purposes is minimized for the WIC program. Corrective Action Plan: See F-18 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The Department is in compliance with the requirement for minimizing the time between payments to our subrecipients and the disbursement of the funds. Payments are made as close as administratively feasible. The Compliance Supplement suggested audit procedures for Cash Management for pass-through entities refers to 200.305(b)(1)...that same paragraph states that the timing and amount of advance payments must be as close as is administratively feasible. Contact: Anthony Madden, Deputy Director, Division of Audit, DHHS, 207-287-2834 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department’s interpretation of the applicable Federal regulation selectively emphasizes a single sentence from the broader paragraph, omitting critical context that informs the regulation’s full intent. According to the 2024 Compliance Supplement, pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of Federal funds to the subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized as required by the applicable cash management requirements in the Federal award to the recipient (2 CFR section 200.305(b)(1)). 2 CFR section 200.305(b)(1) states that the recipient or subrecipient must be paid in advance, provided it maintains or demonstrates the willingness to maintain both written procedures that minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds and disbursement by the recipient or subrecipient, and financial management systems that meet the standards for fund control and accountability as established in this part. Advance payments to a recipient or subrecipient must be limited to the minimum amounts needed and be timed with actual, immediate cash requirements of the recipient or subrecipient in carrying out the purpose of the approved program or project. The timing and amount of advance payments must be as close as is administratively feasible to the actual disbursements by the recipient or subrecipient for direct program or project costs and the proportionate share of any allowable indirect costs. The recipient or subrecipient must make timely payments to contractors in accordance with the contract provisions. The Department references the phrase “as close as is administratively feasible” to justify their current process; however, this phrase is part of a broader requirement that establishes specific conditions for advance payments. The regulation requires that the timing between when the subrecipient receives Federal funds from the State and when the subrecipient disburses those funds is closely monitored to ensure that disbursements align with actual, immediate cash needs. A full reading of the provision indicates that “administratively feasible” does not negate the obligation to implement effective controls that minimize this gap, nor does it permit delays or inadequate oversight in Federal cash management. The Department could not provide evidence to demonstrate that they adequately monitored subrecipient cash drawdowns to ensure alignment with actual, immediate cash needs. Additionally, the Department does not require subrecipients to submit invoice documentation to substantiate the timing, amount, or nature of expenditures included in the request of Federal funds. As a result, the Department cannot demonstrate an adequate level of monitoring, as there is no evidence that they collect the necessary information to ensure compliance with Federal cash management requirements. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1113-03)

(2024-037) Title: Internal control over WIC subrecipient cash management needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Division of Contract Management Maine Center for Disease Control & Prevention Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 10.557 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Cash management Subrecipient monitoring Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.305 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department is required to monitor cash drawdowns by their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the payment of Federal funds to the subrecipient and the subrecipient’s actual disbursement for program purposes is minimized. Condition: The Department’s Division of Contract Management (DCM) has three methods for providing payments to subrecipients: cost-settled, cost-settled by invoice, and fee-for-service subawards. • For cost-settled subawards, DCM procedures include making equal advance monthly payments and then reconciling those amounts to the quarterly financial reports submitted by the subrecipient. This procedure does not take into consideration the time elapsing between the payment of Federal funds to the subrecipient and the subrecipient’s actual disbursement for program purposes. • For “cost-settled by invoice” (reimbursement) subawards, DCM procedures do not require subrecipients to include supporting documentation with monthly requests for reimbursement nor do they request supporting documentation at a subsequent date. This procedure does not take into consideration the time elapsing between the payment of Federal funds to the subrecipient and the subrecipient’s actual disbursement for program purposes. • Cash management requirements are not applicable for fee-for-service subawards. Maine Center for Disease Control & Prevention (MeCDC) is responsible for ensuring the WIC program’s subrecipients comply with Federal requirements; however, MeCDC’s subrecipient monitoring procedures do not include review of subrecipient compliance with cash management requirements. All of WIC’s subawards are cost-settled. Therefore, DCM and MeCDC procedures do not support that subrecipient cash management is properly monitored as required by Federal regulations. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the Department provided $5.9 million to subrecipients from WIC grant funds totaling $22.8 million. Cause: • Lack of adequate subrecipient monitoring procedures • Lack of centralized oversight of subrecipient monitoring Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Federal programs may not be effectively and efficiently administered. • The Federal government may require the implementation of more stringent subrecipient cash management procedures. Recommendation: We recommend that MeCDC collaborate with DCM to implement monitoring procedures over subrecipient cash management requirements to ensure that the time elapsing between the payment of Federal funds to the subrecipient and the subrecipient’s actual disbursement for program purposes is minimized for the WIC program. Corrective Action Plan: See F-18 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The Department is in compliance with the requirement for minimizing the time between payments to our subrecipients and the disbursement of the funds. Payments are made as close as administratively feasible. The Compliance Supplement suggested audit procedures for Cash Management for pass-through entities refers to 200.305(b)(1)...that same paragraph states that the timing and amount of advance payments must be as close as is administratively feasible. Contact: Anthony Madden, Deputy Director, Division of Audit, DHHS, 207-287-2834 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department’s interpretation of the applicable Federal regulation selectively emphasizes a single sentence from the broader paragraph, omitting critical context that informs the regulation’s full intent. According to the 2024 Compliance Supplement, pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of Federal funds to the subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized as required by the applicable cash management requirements in the Federal award to the recipient (2 CFR section 200.305(b)(1)). 2 CFR section 200.305(b)(1) states that the recipient or subrecipient must be paid in advance, provided it maintains or demonstrates the willingness to maintain both written procedures that minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds and disbursement by the recipient or subrecipient, and financial management systems that meet the standards for fund control and accountability as established in this part. Advance payments to a recipient or subrecipient must be limited to the minimum amounts needed and be timed with actual, immediate cash requirements of the recipient or subrecipient in carrying out the purpose of the approved program or project. The timing and amount of advance payments must be as close as is administratively feasible to the actual disbursements by the recipient or subrecipient for direct program or project costs and the proportionate share of any allowable indirect costs. The recipient or subrecipient must make timely payments to contractors in accordance with the contract provisions. The Department references the phrase “as close as is administratively feasible” to justify their current process; however, this phrase is part of a broader requirement that establishes specific conditions for advance payments. The regulation requires that the timing between when the subrecipient receives Federal funds from the State and when the subrecipient disburses those funds is closely monitored to ensure that disbursements align with actual, immediate cash needs. A full reading of the provision indicates that “administratively feasible” does not negate the obligation to implement effective controls that minimize this gap, nor does it permit delays or inadequate oversight in Federal cash management. The Department could not provide evidence to demonstrate that they adequately monitored subrecipient cash drawdowns to ensure alignment with actual, immediate cash needs. Additionally, the Department does not require subrecipients to submit invoice documentation to substantiate the timing, amount, or nature of expenditures included in the request of Federal funds. As a result, the Department cannot demonstrate an adequate level of monitoring, as there is no evidence that they collect the necessary information to ensure compliance with Federal cash management requirements. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1113-03)

(2024-038) Title: Internal control over WIC cash balances needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Maine Center for Disease Control & Prevention Health and Human Services Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 10.557 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Cash management Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.302 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the awards. Financial records must adequately identify the source and application of funds and provide accountability for all funds, property, and other assets related to the Federally-funded activities. Condition: The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) issued finding 2019-021 as a result of procedures performed for the fiscal year 2019 audit. This finding identified that “Program personnel did not take the existing cash balance into consideration when requesting Federal funds for the Food portion of the WIC grant.” This resulted in an excess cash balance for the Food grant. The finding continues to be repeated as the Department has not returned the funds to the Federal awarding agency and the excess cash balance remains. Context: The Department calculated a $1,055,104 residual cash balance from the 2013 WIC Food grant and a $4,100 residual cash balance from the 2018 WIC Food grant. Cause: Lack of adequate recordkeeping and account reconciliation in prior years. The Department has made efforts to seek disposition from the Federal awarding agency; however, the issue has not been resolved. Effect: The State may be required to return $1,059,204 to the Federal awarding agency. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department continue efforts to resolve this matter with the Federal awarding agency. Corrective Action Plan: See F-18 Management’s Response: The Department and the DHHS Financial Service Center agree with this finding. The Department will work with the Federal Agency on steps needed to resolve the cash discrepancy. Contact: Sarah Gove, Director, DHHS Service Center, DAFS, 207-458-6626 (State Number: 24-1113-01)

(2024-038) Title: Internal control over WIC cash balances needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Maine Center for Disease Control & Prevention Health and Human Services Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 10.557 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Cash management Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.302 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the awards. Financial records must adequately identify the source and application of funds and provide accountability for all funds, property, and other assets related to the Federally-funded activities. Condition: The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) issued finding 2019-021 as a result of procedures performed for the fiscal year 2019 audit. This finding identified that “Program personnel did not take the existing cash balance into consideration when requesting Federal funds for the Food portion of the WIC grant.” This resulted in an excess cash balance for the Food grant. The finding continues to be repeated as the Department has not returned the funds to the Federal awarding agency and the excess cash balance remains. Context: The Department calculated a $1,055,104 residual cash balance from the 2013 WIC Food grant and a $4,100 residual cash balance from the 2018 WIC Food grant. Cause: Lack of adequate recordkeeping and account reconciliation in prior years. The Department has made efforts to seek disposition from the Federal awarding agency; however, the issue has not been resolved. Effect: The State may be required to return $1,059,204 to the Federal awarding agency. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department continue efforts to resolve this matter with the Federal awarding agency. Corrective Action Plan: See F-18 Management’s Response: The Department and the DHHS Financial Service Center agree with this finding. The Department will work with the Federal Agency on steps needed to resolve the cash discrepancy. Contact: Sarah Gove, Director, DHHS Service Center, DAFS, 207-458-6626 (State Number: 24-1113-01)

(2024-039) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: Internal control over UI claim payments needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Labor State Bureau: Unemployment Compensation Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Labor Assistance Listing Title: Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 17.225 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Eligibility Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 20 CFR 615.8; Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012; Social Security Act Title III, Section 303; Unemployment Insurance Program Letter No. 5-13; 26 MRSA 1190 through 1199 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. A State administering Unemployment Insurance (UI) must have State laws and policies in place that are consistent with Federal provisions and required by 20 CFR 615.8; the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012; Social Security Act Title III, Section 303; and Unemployment Insurance Program Letter No. 5-13, as follows: • Standards for claim filing and processing including appeals and reviews, communication with claimants and employers, eligibility standards and disqualifications, and Interstate Benefit Payments and agreements • Standards for reasonable work search criteria and policies requiring performance of internal audits of work search activity • Standards for program integrity outlining procedures for identification and recovery of overpayments and penalties, including recovery through offset of future benefit payments The State of Maine’s statutory requirements for UI program benefits are outlined in 26 MRSA 1190 through 1199. Condition: Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. The Department has complementary controls in place over claimant eligibility, including: • performance of internal work search audits by MDOL personnel for one percent of weekly claims, and • establishment of a Benefits Quality Control Unit tasked with investigating a prescribed number of UI paid claims and denied claims each week. The Office of the State Auditor performed data analytic procedures surrounding continuing eligibility requirements for weekly claim submission and work search activity entered by claimants and identified the following indications of claimant program abuse: • 21 claimants reported repetitive work search activities for all fiscal year 2024 claims, ranging from 7 to 14 consecutive benefit weeks. • 24 claimants reported the same work search contact for all fiscal year 2024 claims, ranging from 17 to 34 consecutive benefit weeks. • Six claimants reported new return to work dates ranging from 7 to 11 consecutive benefit weeks, which generated new temporary unemployment waivers allowing claimants to file weekly claims without reporting work search activities. • Five claimants reported part-time work totaling less than 10 hours per week ranging from 8 to 21 consecutive benefit weeks, generating new weekly unemployment waivers allowing the claimant to file weekly claims without reporting work search activities. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the UI program provided approximately $119 million in State UI benefits and $800 thousand in Federal UI benefits. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures over continuing claimant eligibility determinations • Lack of adequate supervisory oversight of information system application controls Effect: • Claimants may be incorrectly determined eligible for UI benefits without meeting Federal program requirements, which may result in unallowable issuances of benefit payments that could remain undetected. • Potential questioned costs and disallowances Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance policies and procedures to require: • implementation of additional information system application controls. • incorporation of data analytics and data cross-matching procedures to prevent or detect payments to ineligible claimants. This will provide assurance that eligibility requirements are met and adequately supported, and that payments to ineligible claimants are prevented, or detected and corrected, in a timely manner. Corrective Action Plan: See F-18 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. The Department acknowledges these audit findings and uses them to refine its system controls to enhance compliance and accuracy in processing claims. Regarding work search waivers for individuals with a return-to-work date, the Department agrees with the finding and implemented a system update in January 2025 to more effectively administer return to work, work search waivers. Based on specifics of the selected cases, management disagrees with the characterization of some work search activities as repetitive. Work search assistance through the Department’s CareerCenters may appear repetitive on a weekly claim but work search assistance from Department staff is both varied and productive. Additionally, job openings during the covered period were frequent, even with the same employer. When work search or other issues are detected on a claim, the Department schedules a fact-finding interview and requests additional documentation. State law requires the Department to continue an individual’s benefits pending a fact-finding review, for which the individual must be given at least seven days’ notice. In addition to conducting fact-finding interviews on issues detected on the weekly claim, the Department randomly audits 3% of claims each week to verify the information provided. Using information obtained through fact-finding interview, a claims adjudicator may uphold the payment of benefits or require the benefits to be repaid. While our policies and procedures align with existing regulations and are functioning as intended, the Department is committed to continuously improving our systems and processes in order to better serve claimants and uphold program integrity. The identified cases will be used to further refine our procedures. Contact: Suzan McKechnie, Director, Bureau of Unemployment Compensation, DOL, 207-621-5126 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over compliance with eligibility requirements. While the Department does have controls in place to perform fact-finding interviews and work search audits, those procedures are carried out after UI benefits have been paid. The data analytics procedures noted in the Condition identified potential instances of program abuse and claimant activity with a high risk of noncompliance that was not detected by the Department’s existing internal controls. Implementation of additional information system application controls and incorporation of data analytics and data cross-matching procedures will provide further assurance that eligibility requirements are met and adequately supported, and that payments to ineligible claimants are prevented, or detected and corrected, in a timely manner. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1302-02)

(2024-039) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: Internal control over UI claim payments needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Labor State Bureau: Unemployment Compensation Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Labor Assistance Listing Title: Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 17.225 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Eligibility Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 20 CFR 615.8; Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012; Social Security Act Title III, Section 303; Unemployment Insurance Program Letter No. 5-13; 26 MRSA 1190 through 1199 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. A State administering Unemployment Insurance (UI) must have State laws and policies in place that are consistent with Federal provisions and required by 20 CFR 615.8; the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012; Social Security Act Title III, Section 303; and Unemployment Insurance Program Letter No. 5-13, as follows: • Standards for claim filing and processing including appeals and reviews, communication with claimants and employers, eligibility standards and disqualifications, and Interstate Benefit Payments and agreements • Standards for reasonable work search criteria and policies requiring performance of internal audits of work search activity • Standards for program integrity outlining procedures for identification and recovery of overpayments and penalties, including recovery through offset of future benefit payments The State of Maine’s statutory requirements for UI program benefits are outlined in 26 MRSA 1190 through 1199. Condition: Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. The Department has complementary controls in place over claimant eligibility, including: • performance of internal work search audits by MDOL personnel for one percent of weekly claims, and • establishment of a Benefits Quality Control Unit tasked with investigating a prescribed number of UI paid claims and denied claims each week. The Office of the State Auditor performed data analytic procedures surrounding continuing eligibility requirements for weekly claim submission and work search activity entered by claimants and identified the following indications of claimant program abuse: • 21 claimants reported repetitive work search activities for all fiscal year 2024 claims, ranging from 7 to 14 consecutive benefit weeks. • 24 claimants reported the same work search contact for all fiscal year 2024 claims, ranging from 17 to 34 consecutive benefit weeks. • Six claimants reported new return to work dates ranging from 7 to 11 consecutive benefit weeks, which generated new temporary unemployment waivers allowing claimants to file weekly claims without reporting work search activities. • Five claimants reported part-time work totaling less than 10 hours per week ranging from 8 to 21 consecutive benefit weeks, generating new weekly unemployment waivers allowing the claimant to file weekly claims without reporting work search activities. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the UI program provided approximately $119 million in State UI benefits and $800 thousand in Federal UI benefits. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures over continuing claimant eligibility determinations • Lack of adequate supervisory oversight of information system application controls Effect: • Claimants may be incorrectly determined eligible for UI benefits without meeting Federal program requirements, which may result in unallowable issuances of benefit payments that could remain undetected. • Potential questioned costs and disallowances Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance policies and procedures to require: • implementation of additional information system application controls. • incorporation of data analytics and data cross-matching procedures to prevent or detect payments to ineligible claimants. This will provide assurance that eligibility requirements are met and adequately supported, and that payments to ineligible claimants are prevented, or detected and corrected, in a timely manner. Corrective Action Plan: See F-18 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. The Department acknowledges these audit findings and uses them to refine its system controls to enhance compliance and accuracy in processing claims. Regarding work search waivers for individuals with a return-to-work date, the Department agrees with the finding and implemented a system update in January 2025 to more effectively administer return to work, work search waivers. Based on specifics of the selected cases, management disagrees with the characterization of some work search activities as repetitive. Work search assistance through the Department’s CareerCenters may appear repetitive on a weekly claim but work search assistance from Department staff is both varied and productive. Additionally, job openings during the covered period were frequent, even with the same employer. When work search or other issues are detected on a claim, the Department schedules a fact-finding interview and requests additional documentation. State law requires the Department to continue an individual’s benefits pending a fact-finding review, for which the individual must be given at least seven days’ notice. In addition to conducting fact-finding interviews on issues detected on the weekly claim, the Department randomly audits 3% of claims each week to verify the information provided. Using information obtained through fact-finding interview, a claims adjudicator may uphold the payment of benefits or require the benefits to be repaid. While our policies and procedures align with existing regulations and are functioning as intended, the Department is committed to continuously improving our systems and processes in order to better serve claimants and uphold program integrity. The identified cases will be used to further refine our procedures. Contact: Suzan McKechnie, Director, Bureau of Unemployment Compensation, DOL, 207-621-5126 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over compliance with eligibility requirements. While the Department does have controls in place to perform fact-finding interviews and work search audits, those procedures are carried out after UI benefits have been paid. The data analytics procedures noted in the Condition identified potential instances of program abuse and claimant activity with a high risk of noncompliance that was not detected by the Department’s existing internal controls. Implementation of additional information system application controls and incorporation of data analytics and data cross-matching procedures will provide further assurance that eligibility requirements are met and adequately supported, and that payments to ineligible claimants are prevented, or detected and corrected, in a timely manner. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1302-02)

(2024-040) Title: Internal control over UI overpayments needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Labor State Bureau: Unemployment Compensation Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Labor Assistance Listing Title: Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 17.225 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Special tests and provisions Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; Public Law Nos. 112-40 and 113-67 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal controls over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The State is required to properly identify and establish overpayments, track repayments, and process them regularly to ensure recovered payments are returned to the original funding source. The Department must sufficiently automate Unemployment Insurance (UI) operations and appropriately handle overpayment information to obtain, correspond, maintain, and transmit information concerning UI benefits. Condition: The Maine Department of Labor (MDOL) promotes and maintains the integrity of the UI program through the prevention, detection, and recovery of UI overpayments made to claimants. An UI overpayment may be established if a claimant is ultimately deemed ineligible for UI benefits after already receiving payment. MDOL must properly identify and establish overpayments to ensure that appropriate follow up action is initiated based on the classification of the overpayment. Once an overpayment is established and classified, a Demand for Payment Notice is generated within the ReEmployME system and transmitted to the claimant to initiate recoupment. The ReEmployME information system stores all claimant overpayment information including data on specific overpayment classifications, causes, and decisions; history logs; and correspondence with claimants. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 claimant overpayments to determine whether MDOL properly established, classified, and monitored overpayments and collections, and found that: • the ReEmployME system established a duplicate overpayment for one claimant for the same claim week. Because of the duplication, one record of overpayment totaling $520 remained active within the system after the overpayment was liquidated. • One Demand for Payment Notice was not communicated to the claimant. The overpayment totaling $9,668 remained active and uncollected from August 2023 to the time of audit testing in February 2025. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the UI program provided $119 million in State UI benefits and $800,000 in Federal UI benefits, and the Department identified $6.5 million in claimant overpayments. Cause: • ReEmployME system error • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate policies and procedures Effect: • Inaccurate UI claimant and overpayment information within the ReEmployME system • Potential untimely or ineffective recoupment of UI benefit overpayments • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance policies and procedures, including increased supervisory oversight, to ensure that claimant overpayments are accurately recorded in the ReEmployME system, properly monitored, and collected timely. Corrective Action Plan: See F-19 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. Remediation efforts are already underway for both issues. Several parameters have been established based on prior findings, and manual monitoring is in place to ensure overpayments are correctly identified. Additionally, federal compliance with the Benefit Accuracy Measurement (BAM) program provides an additional layer of oversight to verify the accuracy of unemployment claims. BAM audits are completed by a unit within the Bureau of Unemployment Compensation. Audits include a comprehensive review of claims and payments. To further enhance oversight, system parameters will be implemented to ensure functionality aligns with MDOL’s agreed-upon standards. The agency remains committed to ensuring compliance, improving system functionality, and reinforcing procedural accuracy to mitigate future occurrences of these issues. Contact: Suzan McKechnie Director, Bureau of Unemployment Compensation, MDOL, 207-621-5126 (State Number: 24-1302-01)

(2024-040) Title: Internal control over UI overpayments needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Labor State Bureau: Unemployment Compensation Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Labor Assistance Listing Title: Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 17.225 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Special tests and provisions Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; Public Law Nos. 112-40 and 113-67 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal controls over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The State is required to properly identify and establish overpayments, track repayments, and process them regularly to ensure recovered payments are returned to the original funding source. The Department must sufficiently automate Unemployment Insurance (UI) operations and appropriately handle overpayment information to obtain, correspond, maintain, and transmit information concerning UI benefits. Condition: The Maine Department of Labor (MDOL) promotes and maintains the integrity of the UI program through the prevention, detection, and recovery of UI overpayments made to claimants. An UI overpayment may be established if a claimant is ultimately deemed ineligible for UI benefits after already receiving payment. MDOL must properly identify and establish overpayments to ensure that appropriate follow up action is initiated based on the classification of the overpayment. Once an overpayment is established and classified, a Demand for Payment Notice is generated within the ReEmployME system and transmitted to the claimant to initiate recoupment. The ReEmployME information system stores all claimant overpayment information including data on specific overpayment classifications, causes, and decisions; history logs; and correspondence with claimants. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 claimant overpayments to determine whether MDOL properly established, classified, and monitored overpayments and collections, and found that: • the ReEmployME system established a duplicate overpayment for one claimant for the same claim week. Because of the duplication, one record of overpayment totaling $520 remained active within the system after the overpayment was liquidated. • One Demand for Payment Notice was not communicated to the claimant. The overpayment totaling $9,668 remained active and uncollected from August 2023 to the time of audit testing in February 2025. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the UI program provided $119 million in State UI benefits and $800,000 in Federal UI benefits, and the Department identified $6.5 million in claimant overpayments. Cause: • ReEmployME system error • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate policies and procedures Effect: • Inaccurate UI claimant and overpayment information within the ReEmployME system • Potential untimely or ineffective recoupment of UI benefit overpayments • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance policies and procedures, including increased supervisory oversight, to ensure that claimant overpayments are accurately recorded in the ReEmployME system, properly monitored, and collected timely. Corrective Action Plan: See F-19 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. Remediation efforts are already underway for both issues. Several parameters have been established based on prior findings, and manual monitoring is in place to ensure overpayments are correctly identified. Additionally, federal compliance with the Benefit Accuracy Measurement (BAM) program provides an additional layer of oversight to verify the accuracy of unemployment claims. BAM audits are completed by a unit within the Bureau of Unemployment Compensation. Audits include a comprehensive review of claims and payments. To further enhance oversight, system parameters will be implemented to ensure functionality aligns with MDOL’s agreed-upon standards. The agency remains committed to ensuring compliance, improving system functionality, and reinforcing procedural accuracy to mitigate future occurrences of these issues. Contact: Suzan McKechnie Director, Bureau of Unemployment Compensation, MDOL, 207-621-5126 (State Number: 24-1302-01)

(2024-041) Title: Internal control over monitoring of employee classification and compensation needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Human Resources Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Fish and Wildlife Cluster Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Rehabilitation Services – Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 15.605, 15.611, 15.626; 17.225; 84.027, 84.173; 84.126; 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.430; 5 MRSA 7061 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that personal services are rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, total compensation is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity, and follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity’s laws and/or rules or written policies. 5 MRSA 7061 states that the (Bureau of Human Resources (BHR)) director shall record the duties and responsibilities of all positions in State service and establish classes for these positions. The procedure shall provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. Condition: BHR maintains the job classification specifications and related compensation plan of State employees. A specific salary specification and grade is assigned based on the duties and responsibilities referenced in the job classification specification; this represents reasonable compensation for the services rendered for all positions that inhabit a given job classification specification. The assigned salary grade provides a basis for the allowability of compensation costs charged to Federal awards by documenting the reasonableness of compensation for services rendered by State employees, and that the position appointments under the job classification specification were made and maintained in accordance with State statute. While BHR relies on data collected from State agencies to implement procedures regarding the classification plan, BHR retains ultimate oversight responsibility. BHR is the only agency with the authority to modify the classification plan. According to 5 MRSA 7061, BHR must provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 19 job classification specifications for compliance with 5 MRSA 7061. BHR could not provide documentation for 14 of the 19 job classification specifications tested to support that they were updated within five years as required by 5 MRSA 7061. Additionally, BHR’s current tracking mechanism does not effectively identify the dates of the last review and next scheduled review, thus hindering compliance with the statutory five-year cycle. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: • During fiscal year 2024, approximately $139 million in payroll expenditures were charged to Federal grants. This represents approximately ten percent of fiscal year 2024 Statewide payroll expenditures, which totaled $1.3 billion. • BHR was responsible for managing approximately 1,200 job classification specifications in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: State employee job classification and compensation may not accurately reflect the current duties and responsibilities of each position. Without documented evidence that review activities are occurring, BHR cannot ensure that the decisions involving the classification and compensation plan of all State employee positions are properly supported by documentation that accurately reflects the current duties and responsibilities of each position. As a result, this may lead to noncompliance with Federal and State regulations.   Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • enhance oversight regarding the maintenance of the State classification and compensation plan in accordance with State statute; • implement policies and procedures to ensure updates or reviews of the State classification and compensation plan at the job classification specification level are adequately documented; and • implement a tracking mechanism to accurately monitor the dates of past reviews and schedule forthcoming reviews to aid in adherence to the statutory requirement. Corrective Action Plan: See F-19 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The procedure referenced in 5 M.R.S. Sec. 7061(4) is laid out in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. The Department complies with these written policies and procedures as required by federal and state law. Section 7061(4) was last updated in 2023, with an effective date in October 2023. Pursuant to the JSC on Appropriations, Section 7061(4)(A) requires a review every five years of the state compensation plan for each class or position in the classified service. The FJA process is not related to the compensation plan, however, it is administered under a separate internal control structure that is in place and operating effectively and ensures that the compensation for individual employees is reasonable for the services rendered. The requirement for review of each classification through the FJA process is covered under Section 7061(4)(C) and is required to be reviewed every 10 years. It is also important to note that the Department has conferred with the OAG, who determined that Section 7061(4)(C) is not retroactive, meaning the Department has another 8.5 years to complete a review of all classifications. Additionally, salary studies conducted on State employee wages have shown that the salary and wages of job classifications paid by the State are consistently lower than industry averages, removing the risk that the utilization of these salary schedules as a component of payroll costs will cause overcharges to Federal grants. Contact: Michael J. Dunn, Acting State Human Resources Officer, Bureau of Human Resources, DAFS, 207-287-4651 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: OSA acknowledges BHR’s reference to 5 MRSA 7061(4), as amended in October 2023, and the procedures for the classification maintenance outlined in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. We also recognize the distinction BHR draws between the five-year statutory requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) for updating job descriptions and compensation plan components, and the ten-year classification plan review introduced under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). OSA’s review focused on BHR’s compliance with the five-year update requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A). While the statute was amended in 2023, the requirement that job descriptions be updated at least every five years has been in place since 1987. The recent amendment did not create this requirement; it expanded BHR’s obligation by tying the update process to the compensation plan and introducing a separate ten-year comprehensive classification review under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). These changes reflect an intent to strengthen oversight and modernize the State’s personnel system, not to delay or diminish BHR’s statutory responsibilities. To distinguish between BHR’s statutory responsibilities under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) and 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C), subsection (4)(A) requires periodic updating of job descriptions and the compensation plan at least every five years; this ensures that individual job classification specifications remain current and accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of State positions. In contrast, subsection (4)(C), introduced in 2023, requires a broader, ten-year comprehensive review of the classification plan as a whole. The two requirements serve different purposes and operate on separate cycles. The five-year review of individual classifications under subsection (4)(A) remains an ongoing statutory obligation, regardless of the addition of subsection (4)(C). While BHR references its internal procedures under 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4 as evidence of compliance, those procedures do not incorporate or reflect the statutory five-year update requirement in subsection (4)(A) or the ten-year update in subsection (4)(C). Furthermore, BHR could not provide documentation to support that 14 of the 19 job classifications tested by OSA had been reviewed or updated within the required timeframe. BHR does not have a comprehensive system to track classification review dates across the classification plan, making it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the statute or proactively manage updates. Internal policy may guide operations, but compliance is ultimately measured against the statutory requirements that govern those operations. The issues identified in audit testing also have implications for the compensation system. Under 5 MRSA 7065, the State’s compensation plan is developed based on the classification plan, with salary grades assigned to specific job classes according to documented duties and responsibilities. The classification plan is the foundational structure upon which compensation decisions are made. If job descriptions are outdated, or not periodically reviewed as required, positions may be misaligned with inappropriate salary grades, which may lead to pay that does not accurately reflect the nature or complexity of the work, including Federally-funded positions. Without a properly maintained classification system, the State cannot ensure that compensation, whether paid with State or Federal funds, is supported by a valid and compliant classification system. Under 2 CFR 200.430(a)(2), compensation for personal services is allowable under Federal awards only when it follows “an appointment made in accordance with the recipient’s…laws, rules, or written policies.” This Federal regulation places the burden of compliance on the State’s adherence to its own legal framework. The Federal government allows flexibility, but that flexibility hinges on the condition that the State follows its own laws; it is the minimum threshold for allowability requirements over personnel costs. Compliance with this law is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation and direct reflection of the expectations placed on the State by the Legislature and the Federal government. BHR asserts that State employee compensation is consistently below market rates and therefore poses no risk of overcharging Federal programs. Even if BHR’s current assertion that State salaries are below market is accepted, Federal guidance provides that reasonableness in amount is only one factor in determining allowability. Compensation must also follow lawful appointment processes and reflect compliance with State personnel laws. A claim of underpayment is not a compensating control to prevent noncompliance with required classification updates. The following statutes only serve to emphasize the responsibility placed upon BHR and the State Human Resources Officer. Under 5 MRSA 7036, the State Human Resources Officer is explicitly responsible for adopting rules for both classification and compensation plans (7036(I) and (J)), enforcing the Civil Service Law (7036(21)), and conducting both short-term and long-term planning for the State’s personnel system (7036(10)). The Officer is also responsible for responding to reclassification requests (7036(5)) and working closely with agencies on their personnel needs (7036(7)). These statutory responsibilities further confirm that maintaining accurate, up-to-date classification specifications is not discretionary. Moreover, failure to fulfill these legal duties has implications that underscore the purpose of a centralized human resources function. These conditions present a risk to the accessibility to public service employment, including potential delayed hiring decisions and diminished ability to attract and retain a skilled workforce. When classification structures are outdated and statutory mandates are not followed, BHR cannot deliver on its mission. We acknowledge BHR’s consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and its efforts to clarify its interpretation of the law; however, the condition observed during the audit period reflects a neutralization of internal controls and subsequent risk of noncompliance with statutory requirements that directly affect both classification and the allowability of personnel costs under Federal awards. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-0111-01)

(2024-041) Title: Internal control over monitoring of employee classification and compensation needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Human Resources Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Fish and Wildlife Cluster Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Rehabilitation Services – Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 15.605, 15.611, 15.626; 17.225; 84.027, 84.173; 84.126; 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.430; 5 MRSA 7061 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that personal services are rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, total compensation is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity, and follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity’s laws and/or rules or written policies. 5 MRSA 7061 states that the (Bureau of Human Resources (BHR)) director shall record the duties and responsibilities of all positions in State service and establish classes for these positions. The procedure shall provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. Condition: BHR maintains the job classification specifications and related compensation plan of State employees. A specific salary specification and grade is assigned based on the duties and responsibilities referenced in the job classification specification; this represents reasonable compensation for the services rendered for all positions that inhabit a given job classification specification. The assigned salary grade provides a basis for the allowability of compensation costs charged to Federal awards by documenting the reasonableness of compensation for services rendered by State employees, and that the position appointments under the job classification specification were made and maintained in accordance with State statute. While BHR relies on data collected from State agencies to implement procedures regarding the classification plan, BHR retains ultimate oversight responsibility. BHR is the only agency with the authority to modify the classification plan. According to 5 MRSA 7061, BHR must provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 19 job classification specifications for compliance with 5 MRSA 7061. BHR could not provide documentation for 14 of the 19 job classification specifications tested to support that they were updated within five years as required by 5 MRSA 7061. Additionally, BHR’s current tracking mechanism does not effectively identify the dates of the last review and next scheduled review, thus hindering compliance with the statutory five-year cycle. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: • During fiscal year 2024, approximately $139 million in payroll expenditures were charged to Federal grants. This represents approximately ten percent of fiscal year 2024 Statewide payroll expenditures, which totaled $1.3 billion. • BHR was responsible for managing approximately 1,200 job classification specifications in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: State employee job classification and compensation may not accurately reflect the current duties and responsibilities of each position. Without documented evidence that review activities are occurring, BHR cannot ensure that the decisions involving the classification and compensation plan of all State employee positions are properly supported by documentation that accurately reflects the current duties and responsibilities of each position. As a result, this may lead to noncompliance with Federal and State regulations.   Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • enhance oversight regarding the maintenance of the State classification and compensation plan in accordance with State statute; • implement policies and procedures to ensure updates or reviews of the State classification and compensation plan at the job classification specification level are adequately documented; and • implement a tracking mechanism to accurately monitor the dates of past reviews and schedule forthcoming reviews to aid in adherence to the statutory requirement. Corrective Action Plan: See F-19 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The procedure referenced in 5 M.R.S. Sec. 7061(4) is laid out in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. The Department complies with these written policies and procedures as required by federal and state law. Section 7061(4) was last updated in 2023, with an effective date in October 2023. Pursuant to the JSC on Appropriations, Section 7061(4)(A) requires a review every five years of the state compensation plan for each class or position in the classified service. The FJA process is not related to the compensation plan, however, it is administered under a separate internal control structure that is in place and operating effectively and ensures that the compensation for individual employees is reasonable for the services rendered. The requirement for review of each classification through the FJA process is covered under Section 7061(4)(C) and is required to be reviewed every 10 years. It is also important to note that the Department has conferred with the OAG, who determined that Section 7061(4)(C) is not retroactive, meaning the Department has another 8.5 years to complete a review of all classifications. Additionally, salary studies conducted on State employee wages have shown that the salary and wages of job classifications paid by the State are consistently lower than industry averages, removing the risk that the utilization of these salary schedules as a component of payroll costs will cause overcharges to Federal grants. Contact: Michael J. Dunn, Acting State Human Resources Officer, Bureau of Human Resources, DAFS, 207-287-4651 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: OSA acknowledges BHR’s reference to 5 MRSA 7061(4), as amended in October 2023, and the procedures for the classification maintenance outlined in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. We also recognize the distinction BHR draws between the five-year statutory requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) for updating job descriptions and compensation plan components, and the ten-year classification plan review introduced under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). OSA’s review focused on BHR’s compliance with the five-year update requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A). While the statute was amended in 2023, the requirement that job descriptions be updated at least every five years has been in place since 1987. The recent amendment did not create this requirement; it expanded BHR’s obligation by tying the update process to the compensation plan and introducing a separate ten-year comprehensive classification review under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). These changes reflect an intent to strengthen oversight and modernize the State’s personnel system, not to delay or diminish BHR’s statutory responsibilities. To distinguish between BHR’s statutory responsibilities under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) and 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C), subsection (4)(A) requires periodic updating of job descriptions and the compensation plan at least every five years; this ensures that individual job classification specifications remain current and accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of State positions. In contrast, subsection (4)(C), introduced in 2023, requires a broader, ten-year comprehensive review of the classification plan as a whole. The two requirements serve different purposes and operate on separate cycles. The five-year review of individual classifications under subsection (4)(A) remains an ongoing statutory obligation, regardless of the addition of subsection (4)(C). While BHR references its internal procedures under 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4 as evidence of compliance, those procedures do not incorporate or reflect the statutory five-year update requirement in subsection (4)(A) or the ten-year update in subsection (4)(C). Furthermore, BHR could not provide documentation to support that 14 of the 19 job classifications tested by OSA had been reviewed or updated within the required timeframe. BHR does not have a comprehensive system to track classification review dates across the classification plan, making it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the statute or proactively manage updates. Internal policy may guide operations, but compliance is ultimately measured against the statutory requirements that govern those operations. The issues identified in audit testing also have implications for the compensation system. Under 5 MRSA 7065, the State’s compensation plan is developed based on the classification plan, with salary grades assigned to specific job classes according to documented duties and responsibilities. The classification plan is the foundational structure upon which compensation decisions are made. If job descriptions are outdated, or not periodically reviewed as required, positions may be misaligned with inappropriate salary grades, which may lead to pay that does not accurately reflect the nature or complexity of the work, including Federally-funded positions. Without a properly maintained classification system, the State cannot ensure that compensation, whether paid with State or Federal funds, is supported by a valid and compliant classification system. Under 2 CFR 200.430(a)(2), compensation for personal services is allowable under Federal awards only when it follows “an appointment made in accordance with the recipient’s…laws, rules, or written policies.” This Federal regulation places the burden of compliance on the State’s adherence to its own legal framework. The Federal government allows flexibility, but that flexibility hinges on the condition that the State follows its own laws; it is the minimum threshold for allowability requirements over personnel costs. Compliance with this law is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation and direct reflection of the expectations placed on the State by the Legislature and the Federal government. BHR asserts that State employee compensation is consistently below market rates and therefore poses no risk of overcharging Federal programs. Even if BHR’s current assertion that State salaries are below market is accepted, Federal guidance provides that reasonableness in amount is only one factor in determining allowability. Compensation must also follow lawful appointment processes and reflect compliance with State personnel laws. A claim of underpayment is not a compensating control to prevent noncompliance with required classification updates. The following statutes only serve to emphasize the responsibility placed upon BHR and the State Human Resources Officer. Under 5 MRSA 7036, the State Human Resources Officer is explicitly responsible for adopting rules for both classification and compensation plans (7036(I) and (J)), enforcing the Civil Service Law (7036(21)), and conducting both short-term and long-term planning for the State’s personnel system (7036(10)). The Officer is also responsible for responding to reclassification requests (7036(5)) and working closely with agencies on their personnel needs (7036(7)). These statutory responsibilities further confirm that maintaining accurate, up-to-date classification specifications is not discretionary. Moreover, failure to fulfill these legal duties has implications that underscore the purpose of a centralized human resources function. These conditions present a risk to the accessibility to public service employment, including potential delayed hiring decisions and diminished ability to attract and retain a skilled workforce. When classification structures are outdated and statutory mandates are not followed, BHR cannot deliver on its mission. We acknowledge BHR’s consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and its efforts to clarify its interpretation of the law; however, the condition observed during the audit period reflects a neutralization of internal controls and subsequent risk of noncompliance with statutory requirements that directly affect both classification and the allowability of personnel costs under Federal awards. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-0111-01)

(2024-041) Title: Internal control over monitoring of employee classification and compensation needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Human Resources Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Fish and Wildlife Cluster Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Rehabilitation Services – Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 15.605, 15.611, 15.626; 17.225; 84.027, 84.173; 84.126; 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.430; 5 MRSA 7061 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that personal services are rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, total compensation is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity, and follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity’s laws and/or rules or written policies. 5 MRSA 7061 states that the (Bureau of Human Resources (BHR)) director shall record the duties and responsibilities of all positions in State service and establish classes for these positions. The procedure shall provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. Condition: BHR maintains the job classification specifications and related compensation plan of State employees. A specific salary specification and grade is assigned based on the duties and responsibilities referenced in the job classification specification; this represents reasonable compensation for the services rendered for all positions that inhabit a given job classification specification. The assigned salary grade provides a basis for the allowability of compensation costs charged to Federal awards by documenting the reasonableness of compensation for services rendered by State employees, and that the position appointments under the job classification specification were made and maintained in accordance with State statute. While BHR relies on data collected from State agencies to implement procedures regarding the classification plan, BHR retains ultimate oversight responsibility. BHR is the only agency with the authority to modify the classification plan. According to 5 MRSA 7061, BHR must provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 19 job classification specifications for compliance with 5 MRSA 7061. BHR could not provide documentation for 14 of the 19 job classification specifications tested to support that they were updated within five years as required by 5 MRSA 7061. Additionally, BHR’s current tracking mechanism does not effectively identify the dates of the last review and next scheduled review, thus hindering compliance with the statutory five-year cycle. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: • During fiscal year 2024, approximately $139 million in payroll expenditures were charged to Federal grants. This represents approximately ten percent of fiscal year 2024 Statewide payroll expenditures, which totaled $1.3 billion. • BHR was responsible for managing approximately 1,200 job classification specifications in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: State employee job classification and compensation may not accurately reflect the current duties and responsibilities of each position. Without documented evidence that review activities are occurring, BHR cannot ensure that the decisions involving the classification and compensation plan of all State employee positions are properly supported by documentation that accurately reflects the current duties and responsibilities of each position. As a result, this may lead to noncompliance with Federal and State regulations.   Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • enhance oversight regarding the maintenance of the State classification and compensation plan in accordance with State statute; • implement policies and procedures to ensure updates or reviews of the State classification and compensation plan at the job classification specification level are adequately documented; and • implement a tracking mechanism to accurately monitor the dates of past reviews and schedule forthcoming reviews to aid in adherence to the statutory requirement. Corrective Action Plan: See F-19 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The procedure referenced in 5 M.R.S. Sec. 7061(4) is laid out in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. The Department complies with these written policies and procedures as required by federal and state law. Section 7061(4) was last updated in 2023, with an effective date in October 2023. Pursuant to the JSC on Appropriations, Section 7061(4)(A) requires a review every five years of the state compensation plan for each class or position in the classified service. The FJA process is not related to the compensation plan, however, it is administered under a separate internal control structure that is in place and operating effectively and ensures that the compensation for individual employees is reasonable for the services rendered. The requirement for review of each classification through the FJA process is covered under Section 7061(4)(C) and is required to be reviewed every 10 years. It is also important to note that the Department has conferred with the OAG, who determined that Section 7061(4)(C) is not retroactive, meaning the Department has another 8.5 years to complete a review of all classifications. Additionally, salary studies conducted on State employee wages have shown that the salary and wages of job classifications paid by the State are consistently lower than industry averages, removing the risk that the utilization of these salary schedules as a component of payroll costs will cause overcharges to Federal grants. Contact: Michael J. Dunn, Acting State Human Resources Officer, Bureau of Human Resources, DAFS, 207-287-4651 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: OSA acknowledges BHR’s reference to 5 MRSA 7061(4), as amended in October 2023, and the procedures for the classification maintenance outlined in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. We also recognize the distinction BHR draws between the five-year statutory requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) for updating job descriptions and compensation plan components, and the ten-year classification plan review introduced under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). OSA’s review focused on BHR’s compliance with the five-year update requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A). While the statute was amended in 2023, the requirement that job descriptions be updated at least every five years has been in place since 1987. The recent amendment did not create this requirement; it expanded BHR’s obligation by tying the update process to the compensation plan and introducing a separate ten-year comprehensive classification review under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). These changes reflect an intent to strengthen oversight and modernize the State’s personnel system, not to delay or diminish BHR’s statutory responsibilities. To distinguish between BHR’s statutory responsibilities under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) and 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C), subsection (4)(A) requires periodic updating of job descriptions and the compensation plan at least every five years; this ensures that individual job classification specifications remain current and accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of State positions. In contrast, subsection (4)(C), introduced in 2023, requires a broader, ten-year comprehensive review of the classification plan as a whole. The two requirements serve different purposes and operate on separate cycles. The five-year review of individual classifications under subsection (4)(A) remains an ongoing statutory obligation, regardless of the addition of subsection (4)(C). While BHR references its internal procedures under 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4 as evidence of compliance, those procedures do not incorporate or reflect the statutory five-year update requirement in subsection (4)(A) or the ten-year update in subsection (4)(C). Furthermore, BHR could not provide documentation to support that 14 of the 19 job classifications tested by OSA had been reviewed or updated within the required timeframe. BHR does not have a comprehensive system to track classification review dates across the classification plan, making it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the statute or proactively manage updates. Internal policy may guide operations, but compliance is ultimately measured against the statutory requirements that govern those operations. The issues identified in audit testing also have implications for the compensation system. Under 5 MRSA 7065, the State’s compensation plan is developed based on the classification plan, with salary grades assigned to specific job classes according to documented duties and responsibilities. The classification plan is the foundational structure upon which compensation decisions are made. If job descriptions are outdated, or not periodically reviewed as required, positions may be misaligned with inappropriate salary grades, which may lead to pay that does not accurately reflect the nature or complexity of the work, including Federally-funded positions. Without a properly maintained classification system, the State cannot ensure that compensation, whether paid with State or Federal funds, is supported by a valid and compliant classification system. Under 2 CFR 200.430(a)(2), compensation for personal services is allowable under Federal awards only when it follows “an appointment made in accordance with the recipient’s…laws, rules, or written policies.” This Federal regulation places the burden of compliance on the State’s adherence to its own legal framework. The Federal government allows flexibility, but that flexibility hinges on the condition that the State follows its own laws; it is the minimum threshold for allowability requirements over personnel costs. Compliance with this law is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation and direct reflection of the expectations placed on the State by the Legislature and the Federal government. BHR asserts that State employee compensation is consistently below market rates and therefore poses no risk of overcharging Federal programs. Even if BHR’s current assertion that State salaries are below market is accepted, Federal guidance provides that reasonableness in amount is only one factor in determining allowability. Compensation must also follow lawful appointment processes and reflect compliance with State personnel laws. A claim of underpayment is not a compensating control to prevent noncompliance with required classification updates. The following statutes only serve to emphasize the responsibility placed upon BHR and the State Human Resources Officer. Under 5 MRSA 7036, the State Human Resources Officer is explicitly responsible for adopting rules for both classification and compensation plans (7036(I) and (J)), enforcing the Civil Service Law (7036(21)), and conducting both short-term and long-term planning for the State’s personnel system (7036(10)). The Officer is also responsible for responding to reclassification requests (7036(5)) and working closely with agencies on their personnel needs (7036(7)). These statutory responsibilities further confirm that maintaining accurate, up-to-date classification specifications is not discretionary. Moreover, failure to fulfill these legal duties has implications that underscore the purpose of a centralized human resources function. These conditions present a risk to the accessibility to public service employment, including potential delayed hiring decisions and diminished ability to attract and retain a skilled workforce. When classification structures are outdated and statutory mandates are not followed, BHR cannot deliver on its mission. We acknowledge BHR’s consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and its efforts to clarify its interpretation of the law; however, the condition observed during the audit period reflects a neutralization of internal controls and subsequent risk of noncompliance with statutory requirements that directly affect both classification and the allowability of personnel costs under Federal awards. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-0111-01)

(2024-041) Title: Internal control over monitoring of employee classification and compensation needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Human Resources Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Fish and Wildlife Cluster Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Rehabilitation Services – Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 15.605, 15.611, 15.626; 17.225; 84.027, 84.173; 84.126; 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.430; 5 MRSA 7061 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that personal services are rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, total compensation is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity, and follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity’s laws and/or rules or written policies. 5 MRSA 7061 states that the (Bureau of Human Resources (BHR)) director shall record the duties and responsibilities of all positions in State service and establish classes for these positions. The procedure shall provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. Condition: BHR maintains the job classification specifications and related compensation plan of State employees. A specific salary specification and grade is assigned based on the duties and responsibilities referenced in the job classification specification; this represents reasonable compensation for the services rendered for all positions that inhabit a given job classification specification. The assigned salary grade provides a basis for the allowability of compensation costs charged to Federal awards by documenting the reasonableness of compensation for services rendered by State employees, and that the position appointments under the job classification specification were made and maintained in accordance with State statute. While BHR relies on data collected from State agencies to implement procedures regarding the classification plan, BHR retains ultimate oversight responsibility. BHR is the only agency with the authority to modify the classification plan. According to 5 MRSA 7061, BHR must provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 19 job classification specifications for compliance with 5 MRSA 7061. BHR could not provide documentation for 14 of the 19 job classification specifications tested to support that they were updated within five years as required by 5 MRSA 7061. Additionally, BHR’s current tracking mechanism does not effectively identify the dates of the last review and next scheduled review, thus hindering compliance with the statutory five-year cycle. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: • During fiscal year 2024, approximately $139 million in payroll expenditures were charged to Federal grants. This represents approximately ten percent of fiscal year 2024 Statewide payroll expenditures, which totaled $1.3 billion. • BHR was responsible for managing approximately 1,200 job classification specifications in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: State employee job classification and compensation may not accurately reflect the current duties and responsibilities of each position. Without documented evidence that review activities are occurring, BHR cannot ensure that the decisions involving the classification and compensation plan of all State employee positions are properly supported by documentation that accurately reflects the current duties and responsibilities of each position. As a result, this may lead to noncompliance with Federal and State regulations.   Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • enhance oversight regarding the maintenance of the State classification and compensation plan in accordance with State statute; • implement policies and procedures to ensure updates or reviews of the State classification and compensation plan at the job classification specification level are adequately documented; and • implement a tracking mechanism to accurately monitor the dates of past reviews and schedule forthcoming reviews to aid in adherence to the statutory requirement. Corrective Action Plan: See F-19 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The procedure referenced in 5 M.R.S. Sec. 7061(4) is laid out in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. The Department complies with these written policies and procedures as required by federal and state law. Section 7061(4) was last updated in 2023, with an effective date in October 2023. Pursuant to the JSC on Appropriations, Section 7061(4)(A) requires a review every five years of the state compensation plan for each class or position in the classified service. The FJA process is not related to the compensation plan, however, it is administered under a separate internal control structure that is in place and operating effectively and ensures that the compensation for individual employees is reasonable for the services rendered. The requirement for review of each classification through the FJA process is covered under Section 7061(4)(C) and is required to be reviewed every 10 years. It is also important to note that the Department has conferred with the OAG, who determined that Section 7061(4)(C) is not retroactive, meaning the Department has another 8.5 years to complete a review of all classifications. Additionally, salary studies conducted on State employee wages have shown that the salary and wages of job classifications paid by the State are consistently lower than industry averages, removing the risk that the utilization of these salary schedules as a component of payroll costs will cause overcharges to Federal grants. Contact: Michael J. Dunn, Acting State Human Resources Officer, Bureau of Human Resources, DAFS, 207-287-4651 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: OSA acknowledges BHR’s reference to 5 MRSA 7061(4), as amended in October 2023, and the procedures for the classification maintenance outlined in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. We also recognize the distinction BHR draws between the five-year statutory requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) for updating job descriptions and compensation plan components, and the ten-year classification plan review introduced under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). OSA’s review focused on BHR’s compliance with the five-year update requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A). While the statute was amended in 2023, the requirement that job descriptions be updated at least every five years has been in place since 1987. The recent amendment did not create this requirement; it expanded BHR’s obligation by tying the update process to the compensation plan and introducing a separate ten-year comprehensive classification review under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). These changes reflect an intent to strengthen oversight and modernize the State’s personnel system, not to delay or diminish BHR’s statutory responsibilities. To distinguish between BHR’s statutory responsibilities under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) and 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C), subsection (4)(A) requires periodic updating of job descriptions and the compensation plan at least every five years; this ensures that individual job classification specifications remain current and accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of State positions. In contrast, subsection (4)(C), introduced in 2023, requires a broader, ten-year comprehensive review of the classification plan as a whole. The two requirements serve different purposes and operate on separate cycles. The five-year review of individual classifications under subsection (4)(A) remains an ongoing statutory obligation, regardless of the addition of subsection (4)(C). While BHR references its internal procedures under 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4 as evidence of compliance, those procedures do not incorporate or reflect the statutory five-year update requirement in subsection (4)(A) or the ten-year update in subsection (4)(C). Furthermore, BHR could not provide documentation to support that 14 of the 19 job classifications tested by OSA had been reviewed or updated within the required timeframe. BHR does not have a comprehensive system to track classification review dates across the classification plan, making it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the statute or proactively manage updates. Internal policy may guide operations, but compliance is ultimately measured against the statutory requirements that govern those operations. The issues identified in audit testing also have implications for the compensation system. Under 5 MRSA 7065, the State’s compensation plan is developed based on the classification plan, with salary grades assigned to specific job classes according to documented duties and responsibilities. The classification plan is the foundational structure upon which compensation decisions are made. If job descriptions are outdated, or not periodically reviewed as required, positions may be misaligned with inappropriate salary grades, which may lead to pay that does not accurately reflect the nature or complexity of the work, including Federally-funded positions. Without a properly maintained classification system, the State cannot ensure that compensation, whether paid with State or Federal funds, is supported by a valid and compliant classification system. Under 2 CFR 200.430(a)(2), compensation for personal services is allowable under Federal awards only when it follows “an appointment made in accordance with the recipient’s…laws, rules, or written policies.” This Federal regulation places the burden of compliance on the State’s adherence to its own legal framework. The Federal government allows flexibility, but that flexibility hinges on the condition that the State follows its own laws; it is the minimum threshold for allowability requirements over personnel costs. Compliance with this law is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation and direct reflection of the expectations placed on the State by the Legislature and the Federal government. BHR asserts that State employee compensation is consistently below market rates and therefore poses no risk of overcharging Federal programs. Even if BHR’s current assertion that State salaries are below market is accepted, Federal guidance provides that reasonableness in amount is only one factor in determining allowability. Compensation must also follow lawful appointment processes and reflect compliance with State personnel laws. A claim of underpayment is not a compensating control to prevent noncompliance with required classification updates. The following statutes only serve to emphasize the responsibility placed upon BHR and the State Human Resources Officer. Under 5 MRSA 7036, the State Human Resources Officer is explicitly responsible for adopting rules for both classification and compensation plans (7036(I) and (J)), enforcing the Civil Service Law (7036(21)), and conducting both short-term and long-term planning for the State’s personnel system (7036(10)). The Officer is also responsible for responding to reclassification requests (7036(5)) and working closely with agencies on their personnel needs (7036(7)). These statutory responsibilities further confirm that maintaining accurate, up-to-date classification specifications is not discretionary. Moreover, failure to fulfill these legal duties has implications that underscore the purpose of a centralized human resources function. These conditions present a risk to the accessibility to public service employment, including potential delayed hiring decisions and diminished ability to attract and retain a skilled workforce. When classification structures are outdated and statutory mandates are not followed, BHR cannot deliver on its mission. We acknowledge BHR’s consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and its efforts to clarify its interpretation of the law; however, the condition observed during the audit period reflects a neutralization of internal controls and subsequent risk of noncompliance with statutory requirements that directly affect both classification and the allowability of personnel costs under Federal awards. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-0111-01)

(2024-041) Title: Internal control over monitoring of employee classification and compensation needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Human Resources Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Fish and Wildlife Cluster Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Rehabilitation Services – Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 15.605, 15.611, 15.626; 17.225; 84.027, 84.173; 84.126; 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.430; 5 MRSA 7061 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that personal services are rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, total compensation is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity, and follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity’s laws and/or rules or written policies. 5 MRSA 7061 states that the (Bureau of Human Resources (BHR)) director shall record the duties and responsibilities of all positions in State service and establish classes for these positions. The procedure shall provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. Condition: BHR maintains the job classification specifications and related compensation plan of State employees. A specific salary specification and grade is assigned based on the duties and responsibilities referenced in the job classification specification; this represents reasonable compensation for the services rendered for all positions that inhabit a given job classification specification. The assigned salary grade provides a basis for the allowability of compensation costs charged to Federal awards by documenting the reasonableness of compensation for services rendered by State employees, and that the position appointments under the job classification specification were made and maintained in accordance with State statute. While BHR relies on data collected from State agencies to implement procedures regarding the classification plan, BHR retains ultimate oversight responsibility. BHR is the only agency with the authority to modify the classification plan. According to 5 MRSA 7061, BHR must provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 19 job classification specifications for compliance with 5 MRSA 7061. BHR could not provide documentation for 14 of the 19 job classification specifications tested to support that they were updated within five years as required by 5 MRSA 7061. Additionally, BHR’s current tracking mechanism does not effectively identify the dates of the last review and next scheduled review, thus hindering compliance with the statutory five-year cycle. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: • During fiscal year 2024, approximately $139 million in payroll expenditures were charged to Federal grants. This represents approximately ten percent of fiscal year 2024 Statewide payroll expenditures, which totaled $1.3 billion. • BHR was responsible for managing approximately 1,200 job classification specifications in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: State employee job classification and compensation may not accurately reflect the current duties and responsibilities of each position. Without documented evidence that review activities are occurring, BHR cannot ensure that the decisions involving the classification and compensation plan of all State employee positions are properly supported by documentation that accurately reflects the current duties and responsibilities of each position. As a result, this may lead to noncompliance with Federal and State regulations.   Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • enhance oversight regarding the maintenance of the State classification and compensation plan in accordance with State statute; • implement policies and procedures to ensure updates or reviews of the State classification and compensation plan at the job classification specification level are adequately documented; and • implement a tracking mechanism to accurately monitor the dates of past reviews and schedule forthcoming reviews to aid in adherence to the statutory requirement. Corrective Action Plan: See F-19 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The procedure referenced in 5 M.R.S. Sec. 7061(4) is laid out in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. The Department complies with these written policies and procedures as required by federal and state law. Section 7061(4) was last updated in 2023, with an effective date in October 2023. Pursuant to the JSC on Appropriations, Section 7061(4)(A) requires a review every five years of the state compensation plan for each class or position in the classified service. The FJA process is not related to the compensation plan, however, it is administered under a separate internal control structure that is in place and operating effectively and ensures that the compensation for individual employees is reasonable for the services rendered. The requirement for review of each classification through the FJA process is covered under Section 7061(4)(C) and is required to be reviewed every 10 years. It is also important to note that the Department has conferred with the OAG, who determined that Section 7061(4)(C) is not retroactive, meaning the Department has another 8.5 years to complete a review of all classifications. Additionally, salary studies conducted on State employee wages have shown that the salary and wages of job classifications paid by the State are consistently lower than industry averages, removing the risk that the utilization of these salary schedules as a component of payroll costs will cause overcharges to Federal grants. Contact: Michael J. Dunn, Acting State Human Resources Officer, Bureau of Human Resources, DAFS, 207-287-4651 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: OSA acknowledges BHR’s reference to 5 MRSA 7061(4), as amended in October 2023, and the procedures for the classification maintenance outlined in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. We also recognize the distinction BHR draws between the five-year statutory requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) for updating job descriptions and compensation plan components, and the ten-year classification plan review introduced under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). OSA’s review focused on BHR’s compliance with the five-year update requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A). While the statute was amended in 2023, the requirement that job descriptions be updated at least every five years has been in place since 1987. The recent amendment did not create this requirement; it expanded BHR’s obligation by tying the update process to the compensation plan and introducing a separate ten-year comprehensive classification review under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). These changes reflect an intent to strengthen oversight and modernize the State’s personnel system, not to delay or diminish BHR’s statutory responsibilities. To distinguish between BHR’s statutory responsibilities under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) and 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C), subsection (4)(A) requires periodic updating of job descriptions and the compensation plan at least every five years; this ensures that individual job classification specifications remain current and accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of State positions. In contrast, subsection (4)(C), introduced in 2023, requires a broader, ten-year comprehensive review of the classification plan as a whole. The two requirements serve different purposes and operate on separate cycles. The five-year review of individual classifications under subsection (4)(A) remains an ongoing statutory obligation, regardless of the addition of subsection (4)(C). While BHR references its internal procedures under 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4 as evidence of compliance, those procedures do not incorporate or reflect the statutory five-year update requirement in subsection (4)(A) or the ten-year update in subsection (4)(C). Furthermore, BHR could not provide documentation to support that 14 of the 19 job classifications tested by OSA had been reviewed or updated within the required timeframe. BHR does not have a comprehensive system to track classification review dates across the classification plan, making it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the statute or proactively manage updates. Internal policy may guide operations, but compliance is ultimately measured against the statutory requirements that govern those operations. The issues identified in audit testing also have implications for the compensation system. Under 5 MRSA 7065, the State’s compensation plan is developed based on the classification plan, with salary grades assigned to specific job classes according to documented duties and responsibilities. The classification plan is the foundational structure upon which compensation decisions are made. If job descriptions are outdated, or not periodically reviewed as required, positions may be misaligned with inappropriate salary grades, which may lead to pay that does not accurately reflect the nature or complexity of the work, including Federally-funded positions. Without a properly maintained classification system, the State cannot ensure that compensation, whether paid with State or Federal funds, is supported by a valid and compliant classification system. Under 2 CFR 200.430(a)(2), compensation for personal services is allowable under Federal awards only when it follows “an appointment made in accordance with the recipient’s…laws, rules, or written policies.” This Federal regulation places the burden of compliance on the State’s adherence to its own legal framework. The Federal government allows flexibility, but that flexibility hinges on the condition that the State follows its own laws; it is the minimum threshold for allowability requirements over personnel costs. Compliance with this law is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation and direct reflection of the expectations placed on the State by the Legislature and the Federal government. BHR asserts that State employee compensation is consistently below market rates and therefore poses no risk of overcharging Federal programs. Even if BHR’s current assertion that State salaries are below market is accepted, Federal guidance provides that reasonableness in amount is only one factor in determining allowability. Compensation must also follow lawful appointment processes and reflect compliance with State personnel laws. A claim of underpayment is not a compensating control to prevent noncompliance with required classification updates. The following statutes only serve to emphasize the responsibility placed upon BHR and the State Human Resources Officer. Under 5 MRSA 7036, the State Human Resources Officer is explicitly responsible for adopting rules for both classification and compensation plans (7036(I) and (J)), enforcing the Civil Service Law (7036(21)), and conducting both short-term and long-term planning for the State’s personnel system (7036(10)). The Officer is also responsible for responding to reclassification requests (7036(5)) and working closely with agencies on their personnel needs (7036(7)). These statutory responsibilities further confirm that maintaining accurate, up-to-date classification specifications is not discretionary. Moreover, failure to fulfill these legal duties has implications that underscore the purpose of a centralized human resources function. These conditions present a risk to the accessibility to public service employment, including potential delayed hiring decisions and diminished ability to attract and retain a skilled workforce. When classification structures are outdated and statutory mandates are not followed, BHR cannot deliver on its mission. We acknowledge BHR’s consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and its efforts to clarify its interpretation of the law; however, the condition observed during the audit period reflects a neutralization of internal controls and subsequent risk of noncompliance with statutory requirements that directly affect both classification and the allowability of personnel costs under Federal awards. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-0111-01)

(2024-041) Title: Internal control over monitoring of employee classification and compensation needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Human Resources Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Fish and Wildlife Cluster Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Rehabilitation Services – Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 15.605, 15.611, 15.626; 17.225; 84.027, 84.173; 84.126; 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.430; 5 MRSA 7061 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that personal services are rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, total compensation is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity, and follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity’s laws and/or rules or written policies. 5 MRSA 7061 states that the (Bureau of Human Resources (BHR)) director shall record the duties and responsibilities of all positions in State service and establish classes for these positions. The procedure shall provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. Condition: BHR maintains the job classification specifications and related compensation plan of State employees. A specific salary specification and grade is assigned based on the duties and responsibilities referenced in the job classification specification; this represents reasonable compensation for the services rendered for all positions that inhabit a given job classification specification. The assigned salary grade provides a basis for the allowability of compensation costs charged to Federal awards by documenting the reasonableness of compensation for services rendered by State employees, and that the position appointments under the job classification specification were made and maintained in accordance with State statute. While BHR relies on data collected from State agencies to implement procedures regarding the classification plan, BHR retains ultimate oversight responsibility. BHR is the only agency with the authority to modify the classification plan. According to 5 MRSA 7061, BHR must provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 19 job classification specifications for compliance with 5 MRSA 7061. BHR could not provide documentation for 14 of the 19 job classification specifications tested to support that they were updated within five years as required by 5 MRSA 7061. Additionally, BHR’s current tracking mechanism does not effectively identify the dates of the last review and next scheduled review, thus hindering compliance with the statutory five-year cycle. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: • During fiscal year 2024, approximately $139 million in payroll expenditures were charged to Federal grants. This represents approximately ten percent of fiscal year 2024 Statewide payroll expenditures, which totaled $1.3 billion. • BHR was responsible for managing approximately 1,200 job classification specifications in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: State employee job classification and compensation may not accurately reflect the current duties and responsibilities of each position. Without documented evidence that review activities are occurring, BHR cannot ensure that the decisions involving the classification and compensation plan of all State employee positions are properly supported by documentation that accurately reflects the current duties and responsibilities of each position. As a result, this may lead to noncompliance with Federal and State regulations.   Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • enhance oversight regarding the maintenance of the State classification and compensation plan in accordance with State statute; • implement policies and procedures to ensure updates or reviews of the State classification and compensation plan at the job classification specification level are adequately documented; and • implement a tracking mechanism to accurately monitor the dates of past reviews and schedule forthcoming reviews to aid in adherence to the statutory requirement. Corrective Action Plan: See F-19 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The procedure referenced in 5 M.R.S. Sec. 7061(4) is laid out in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. The Department complies with these written policies and procedures as required by federal and state law. Section 7061(4) was last updated in 2023, with an effective date in October 2023. Pursuant to the JSC on Appropriations, Section 7061(4)(A) requires a review every five years of the state compensation plan for each class or position in the classified service. The FJA process is not related to the compensation plan, however, it is administered under a separate internal control structure that is in place and operating effectively and ensures that the compensation for individual employees is reasonable for the services rendered. The requirement for review of each classification through the FJA process is covered under Section 7061(4)(C) and is required to be reviewed every 10 years. It is also important to note that the Department has conferred with the OAG, who determined that Section 7061(4)(C) is not retroactive, meaning the Department has another 8.5 years to complete a review of all classifications. Additionally, salary studies conducted on State employee wages have shown that the salary and wages of job classifications paid by the State are consistently lower than industry averages, removing the risk that the utilization of these salary schedules as a component of payroll costs will cause overcharges to Federal grants. Contact: Michael J. Dunn, Acting State Human Resources Officer, Bureau of Human Resources, DAFS, 207-287-4651 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: OSA acknowledges BHR’s reference to 5 MRSA 7061(4), as amended in October 2023, and the procedures for the classification maintenance outlined in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. We also recognize the distinction BHR draws between the five-year statutory requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) for updating job descriptions and compensation plan components, and the ten-year classification plan review introduced under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). OSA’s review focused on BHR’s compliance with the five-year update requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A). While the statute was amended in 2023, the requirement that job descriptions be updated at least every five years has been in place since 1987. The recent amendment did not create this requirement; it expanded BHR’s obligation by tying the update process to the compensation plan and introducing a separate ten-year comprehensive classification review under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). These changes reflect an intent to strengthen oversight and modernize the State’s personnel system, not to delay or diminish BHR’s statutory responsibilities. To distinguish between BHR’s statutory responsibilities under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) and 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C), subsection (4)(A) requires periodic updating of job descriptions and the compensation plan at least every five years; this ensures that individual job classification specifications remain current and accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of State positions. In contrast, subsection (4)(C), introduced in 2023, requires a broader, ten-year comprehensive review of the classification plan as a whole. The two requirements serve different purposes and operate on separate cycles. The five-year review of individual classifications under subsection (4)(A) remains an ongoing statutory obligation, regardless of the addition of subsection (4)(C). While BHR references its internal procedures under 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4 as evidence of compliance, those procedures do not incorporate or reflect the statutory five-year update requirement in subsection (4)(A) or the ten-year update in subsection (4)(C). Furthermore, BHR could not provide documentation to support that 14 of the 19 job classifications tested by OSA had been reviewed or updated within the required timeframe. BHR does not have a comprehensive system to track classification review dates across the classification plan, making it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the statute or proactively manage updates. Internal policy may guide operations, but compliance is ultimately measured against the statutory requirements that govern those operations. The issues identified in audit testing also have implications for the compensation system. Under 5 MRSA 7065, the State’s compensation plan is developed based on the classification plan, with salary grades assigned to specific job classes according to documented duties and responsibilities. The classification plan is the foundational structure upon which compensation decisions are made. If job descriptions are outdated, or not periodically reviewed as required, positions may be misaligned with inappropriate salary grades, which may lead to pay that does not accurately reflect the nature or complexity of the work, including Federally-funded positions. Without a properly maintained classification system, the State cannot ensure that compensation, whether paid with State or Federal funds, is supported by a valid and compliant classification system. Under 2 CFR 200.430(a)(2), compensation for personal services is allowable under Federal awards only when it follows “an appointment made in accordance with the recipient’s…laws, rules, or written policies.” This Federal regulation places the burden of compliance on the State’s adherence to its own legal framework. The Federal government allows flexibility, but that flexibility hinges on the condition that the State follows its own laws; it is the minimum threshold for allowability requirements over personnel costs. Compliance with this law is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation and direct reflection of the expectations placed on the State by the Legislature and the Federal government. BHR asserts that State employee compensation is consistently below market rates and therefore poses no risk of overcharging Federal programs. Even if BHR’s current assertion that State salaries are below market is accepted, Federal guidance provides that reasonableness in amount is only one factor in determining allowability. Compensation must also follow lawful appointment processes and reflect compliance with State personnel laws. A claim of underpayment is not a compensating control to prevent noncompliance with required classification updates. The following statutes only serve to emphasize the responsibility placed upon BHR and the State Human Resources Officer. Under 5 MRSA 7036, the State Human Resources Officer is explicitly responsible for adopting rules for both classification and compensation plans (7036(I) and (J)), enforcing the Civil Service Law (7036(21)), and conducting both short-term and long-term planning for the State’s personnel system (7036(10)). The Officer is also responsible for responding to reclassification requests (7036(5)) and working closely with agencies on their personnel needs (7036(7)). These statutory responsibilities further confirm that maintaining accurate, up-to-date classification specifications is not discretionary. Moreover, failure to fulfill these legal duties has implications that underscore the purpose of a centralized human resources function. These conditions present a risk to the accessibility to public service employment, including potential delayed hiring decisions and diminished ability to attract and retain a skilled workforce. When classification structures are outdated and statutory mandates are not followed, BHR cannot deliver on its mission. We acknowledge BHR’s consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and its efforts to clarify its interpretation of the law; however, the condition observed during the audit period reflects a neutralization of internal controls and subsequent risk of noncompliance with statutory requirements that directly affect both classification and the allowability of personnel costs under Federal awards. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-0111-01)

(2024-041) Title: Internal control over monitoring of employee classification and compensation needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Human Resources Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Fish and Wildlife Cluster Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Rehabilitation Services – Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 15.605, 15.611, 15.626; 17.225; 84.027, 84.173; 84.126; 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.430; 5 MRSA 7061 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that personal services are rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, total compensation is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity, and follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity’s laws and/or rules or written policies. 5 MRSA 7061 states that the (Bureau of Human Resources (BHR)) director shall record the duties and responsibilities of all positions in State service and establish classes for these positions. The procedure shall provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. Condition: BHR maintains the job classification specifications and related compensation plan of State employees. A specific salary specification and grade is assigned based on the duties and responsibilities referenced in the job classification specification; this represents reasonable compensation for the services rendered for all positions that inhabit a given job classification specification. The assigned salary grade provides a basis for the allowability of compensation costs charged to Federal awards by documenting the reasonableness of compensation for services rendered by State employees, and that the position appointments under the job classification specification were made and maintained in accordance with State statute. While BHR relies on data collected from State agencies to implement procedures regarding the classification plan, BHR retains ultimate oversight responsibility. BHR is the only agency with the authority to modify the classification plan. According to 5 MRSA 7061, BHR must provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 19 job classification specifications for compliance with 5 MRSA 7061. BHR could not provide documentation for 14 of the 19 job classification specifications tested to support that they were updated within five years as required by 5 MRSA 7061. Additionally, BHR’s current tracking mechanism does not effectively identify the dates of the last review and next scheduled review, thus hindering compliance with the statutory five-year cycle. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: • During fiscal year 2024, approximately $139 million in payroll expenditures were charged to Federal grants. This represents approximately ten percent of fiscal year 2024 Statewide payroll expenditures, which totaled $1.3 billion. • BHR was responsible for managing approximately 1,200 job classification specifications in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: State employee job classification and compensation may not accurately reflect the current duties and responsibilities of each position. Without documented evidence that review activities are occurring, BHR cannot ensure that the decisions involving the classification and compensation plan of all State employee positions are properly supported by documentation that accurately reflects the current duties and responsibilities of each position. As a result, this may lead to noncompliance with Federal and State regulations.   Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • enhance oversight regarding the maintenance of the State classification and compensation plan in accordance with State statute; • implement policies and procedures to ensure updates or reviews of the State classification and compensation plan at the job classification specification level are adequately documented; and • implement a tracking mechanism to accurately monitor the dates of past reviews and schedule forthcoming reviews to aid in adherence to the statutory requirement. Corrective Action Plan: See F-19 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The procedure referenced in 5 M.R.S. Sec. 7061(4) is laid out in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. The Department complies with these written policies and procedures as required by federal and state law. Section 7061(4) was last updated in 2023, with an effective date in October 2023. Pursuant to the JSC on Appropriations, Section 7061(4)(A) requires a review every five years of the state compensation plan for each class or position in the classified service. The FJA process is not related to the compensation plan, however, it is administered under a separate internal control structure that is in place and operating effectively and ensures that the compensation for individual employees is reasonable for the services rendered. The requirement for review of each classification through the FJA process is covered under Section 7061(4)(C) and is required to be reviewed every 10 years. It is also important to note that the Department has conferred with the OAG, who determined that Section 7061(4)(C) is not retroactive, meaning the Department has another 8.5 years to complete a review of all classifications. Additionally, salary studies conducted on State employee wages have shown that the salary and wages of job classifications paid by the State are consistently lower than industry averages, removing the risk that the utilization of these salary schedules as a component of payroll costs will cause overcharges to Federal grants. Contact: Michael J. Dunn, Acting State Human Resources Officer, Bureau of Human Resources, DAFS, 207-287-4651 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: OSA acknowledges BHR’s reference to 5 MRSA 7061(4), as amended in October 2023, and the procedures for the classification maintenance outlined in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. We also recognize the distinction BHR draws between the five-year statutory requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) for updating job descriptions and compensation plan components, and the ten-year classification plan review introduced under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). OSA’s review focused on BHR’s compliance with the five-year update requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A). While the statute was amended in 2023, the requirement that job descriptions be updated at least every five years has been in place since 1987. The recent amendment did not create this requirement; it expanded BHR’s obligation by tying the update process to the compensation plan and introducing a separate ten-year comprehensive classification review under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). These changes reflect an intent to strengthen oversight and modernize the State’s personnel system, not to delay or diminish BHR’s statutory responsibilities. To distinguish between BHR’s statutory responsibilities under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) and 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C), subsection (4)(A) requires periodic updating of job descriptions and the compensation plan at least every five years; this ensures that individual job classification specifications remain current and accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of State positions. In contrast, subsection (4)(C), introduced in 2023, requires a broader, ten-year comprehensive review of the classification plan as a whole. The two requirements serve different purposes and operate on separate cycles. The five-year review of individual classifications under subsection (4)(A) remains an ongoing statutory obligation, regardless of the addition of subsection (4)(C). While BHR references its internal procedures under 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4 as evidence of compliance, those procedures do not incorporate or reflect the statutory five-year update requirement in subsection (4)(A) or the ten-year update in subsection (4)(C). Furthermore, BHR could not provide documentation to support that 14 of the 19 job classifications tested by OSA had been reviewed or updated within the required timeframe. BHR does not have a comprehensive system to track classification review dates across the classification plan, making it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the statute or proactively manage updates. Internal policy may guide operations, but compliance is ultimately measured against the statutory requirements that govern those operations. The issues identified in audit testing also have implications for the compensation system. Under 5 MRSA 7065, the State’s compensation plan is developed based on the classification plan, with salary grades assigned to specific job classes according to documented duties and responsibilities. The classification plan is the foundational structure upon which compensation decisions are made. If job descriptions are outdated, or not periodically reviewed as required, positions may be misaligned with inappropriate salary grades, which may lead to pay that does not accurately reflect the nature or complexity of the work, including Federally-funded positions. Without a properly maintained classification system, the State cannot ensure that compensation, whether paid with State or Federal funds, is supported by a valid and compliant classification system. Under 2 CFR 200.430(a)(2), compensation for personal services is allowable under Federal awards only when it follows “an appointment made in accordance with the recipient’s…laws, rules, or written policies.” This Federal regulation places the burden of compliance on the State’s adherence to its own legal framework. The Federal government allows flexibility, but that flexibility hinges on the condition that the State follows its own laws; it is the minimum threshold for allowability requirements over personnel costs. Compliance with this law is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation and direct reflection of the expectations placed on the State by the Legislature and the Federal government. BHR asserts that State employee compensation is consistently below market rates and therefore poses no risk of overcharging Federal programs. Even if BHR’s current assertion that State salaries are below market is accepted, Federal guidance provides that reasonableness in amount is only one factor in determining allowability. Compensation must also follow lawful appointment processes and reflect compliance with State personnel laws. A claim of underpayment is not a compensating control to prevent noncompliance with required classification updates. The following statutes only serve to emphasize the responsibility placed upon BHR and the State Human Resources Officer. Under 5 MRSA 7036, the State Human Resources Officer is explicitly responsible for adopting rules for both classification and compensation plans (7036(I) and (J)), enforcing the Civil Service Law (7036(21)), and conducting both short-term and long-term planning for the State’s personnel system (7036(10)). The Officer is also responsible for responding to reclassification requests (7036(5)) and working closely with agencies on their personnel needs (7036(7)). These statutory responsibilities further confirm that maintaining accurate, up-to-date classification specifications is not discretionary. Moreover, failure to fulfill these legal duties has implications that underscore the purpose of a centralized human resources function. These conditions present a risk to the accessibility to public service employment, including potential delayed hiring decisions and diminished ability to attract and retain a skilled workforce. When classification structures are outdated and statutory mandates are not followed, BHR cannot deliver on its mission. We acknowledge BHR’s consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and its efforts to clarify its interpretation of the law; however, the condition observed during the audit period reflects a neutralization of internal controls and subsequent risk of noncompliance with statutory requirements that directly affect both classification and the allowability of personnel costs under Federal awards. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-0111-01)

(2024-041) Title: Internal control over monitoring of employee classification and compensation needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Human Resources Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Fish and Wildlife Cluster Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Rehabilitation Services – Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 15.605, 15.611, 15.626; 17.225; 84.027, 84.173; 84.126; 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.430; 5 MRSA 7061 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that personal services are rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, total compensation is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity, and follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity’s laws and/or rules or written policies. 5 MRSA 7061 states that the (Bureau of Human Resources (BHR)) director shall record the duties and responsibilities of all positions in State service and establish classes for these positions. The procedure shall provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. Condition: BHR maintains the job classification specifications and related compensation plan of State employees. A specific salary specification and grade is assigned based on the duties and responsibilities referenced in the job classification specification; this represents reasonable compensation for the services rendered for all positions that inhabit a given job classification specification. The assigned salary grade provides a basis for the allowability of compensation costs charged to Federal awards by documenting the reasonableness of compensation for services rendered by State employees, and that the position appointments under the job classification specification were made and maintained in accordance with State statute. While BHR relies on data collected from State agencies to implement procedures regarding the classification plan, BHR retains ultimate oversight responsibility. BHR is the only agency with the authority to modify the classification plan. According to 5 MRSA 7061, BHR must provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 19 job classification specifications for compliance with 5 MRSA 7061. BHR could not provide documentation for 14 of the 19 job classification specifications tested to support that they were updated within five years as required by 5 MRSA 7061. Additionally, BHR’s current tracking mechanism does not effectively identify the dates of the last review and next scheduled review, thus hindering compliance with the statutory five-year cycle. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: • During fiscal year 2024, approximately $139 million in payroll expenditures were charged to Federal grants. This represents approximately ten percent of fiscal year 2024 Statewide payroll expenditures, which totaled $1.3 billion. • BHR was responsible for managing approximately 1,200 job classification specifications in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: State employee job classification and compensation may not accurately reflect the current duties and responsibilities of each position. Without documented evidence that review activities are occurring, BHR cannot ensure that the decisions involving the classification and compensation plan of all State employee positions are properly supported by documentation that accurately reflects the current duties and responsibilities of each position. As a result, this may lead to noncompliance with Federal and State regulations.   Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • enhance oversight regarding the maintenance of the State classification and compensation plan in accordance with State statute; • implement policies and procedures to ensure updates or reviews of the State classification and compensation plan at the job classification specification level are adequately documented; and • implement a tracking mechanism to accurately monitor the dates of past reviews and schedule forthcoming reviews to aid in adherence to the statutory requirement. Corrective Action Plan: See F-19 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The procedure referenced in 5 M.R.S. Sec. 7061(4) is laid out in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. The Department complies with these written policies and procedures as required by federal and state law. Section 7061(4) was last updated in 2023, with an effective date in October 2023. Pursuant to the JSC on Appropriations, Section 7061(4)(A) requires a review every five years of the state compensation plan for each class or position in the classified service. The FJA process is not related to the compensation plan, however, it is administered under a separate internal control structure that is in place and operating effectively and ensures that the compensation for individual employees is reasonable for the services rendered. The requirement for review of each classification through the FJA process is covered under Section 7061(4)(C) and is required to be reviewed every 10 years. It is also important to note that the Department has conferred with the OAG, who determined that Section 7061(4)(C) is not retroactive, meaning the Department has another 8.5 years to complete a review of all classifications. Additionally, salary studies conducted on State employee wages have shown that the salary and wages of job classifications paid by the State are consistently lower than industry averages, removing the risk that the utilization of these salary schedules as a component of payroll costs will cause overcharges to Federal grants. Contact: Michael J. Dunn, Acting State Human Resources Officer, Bureau of Human Resources, DAFS, 207-287-4651 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: OSA acknowledges BHR’s reference to 5 MRSA 7061(4), as amended in October 2023, and the procedures for the classification maintenance outlined in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. We also recognize the distinction BHR draws between the five-year statutory requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) for updating job descriptions and compensation plan components, and the ten-year classification plan review introduced under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). OSA’s review focused on BHR’s compliance with the five-year update requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A). While the statute was amended in 2023, the requirement that job descriptions be updated at least every five years has been in place since 1987. The recent amendment did not create this requirement; it expanded BHR’s obligation by tying the update process to the compensation plan and introducing a separate ten-year comprehensive classification review under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). These changes reflect an intent to strengthen oversight and modernize the State’s personnel system, not to delay or diminish BHR’s statutory responsibilities. To distinguish between BHR’s statutory responsibilities under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) and 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C), subsection (4)(A) requires periodic updating of job descriptions and the compensation plan at least every five years; this ensures that individual job classification specifications remain current and accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of State positions. In contrast, subsection (4)(C), introduced in 2023, requires a broader, ten-year comprehensive review of the classification plan as a whole. The two requirements serve different purposes and operate on separate cycles. The five-year review of individual classifications under subsection (4)(A) remains an ongoing statutory obligation, regardless of the addition of subsection (4)(C). While BHR references its internal procedures under 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4 as evidence of compliance, those procedures do not incorporate or reflect the statutory five-year update requirement in subsection (4)(A) or the ten-year update in subsection (4)(C). Furthermore, BHR could not provide documentation to support that 14 of the 19 job classifications tested by OSA had been reviewed or updated within the required timeframe. BHR does not have a comprehensive system to track classification review dates across the classification plan, making it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the statute or proactively manage updates. Internal policy may guide operations, but compliance is ultimately measured against the statutory requirements that govern those operations. The issues identified in audit testing also have implications for the compensation system. Under 5 MRSA 7065, the State’s compensation plan is developed based on the classification plan, with salary grades assigned to specific job classes according to documented duties and responsibilities. The classification plan is the foundational structure upon which compensation decisions are made. If job descriptions are outdated, or not periodically reviewed as required, positions may be misaligned with inappropriate salary grades, which may lead to pay that does not accurately reflect the nature or complexity of the work, including Federally-funded positions. Without a properly maintained classification system, the State cannot ensure that compensation, whether paid with State or Federal funds, is supported by a valid and compliant classification system. Under 2 CFR 200.430(a)(2), compensation for personal services is allowable under Federal awards only when it follows “an appointment made in accordance with the recipient’s…laws, rules, or written policies.” This Federal regulation places the burden of compliance on the State’s adherence to its own legal framework. The Federal government allows flexibility, but that flexibility hinges on the condition that the State follows its own laws; it is the minimum threshold for allowability requirements over personnel costs. Compliance with this law is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation and direct reflection of the expectations placed on the State by the Legislature and the Federal government. BHR asserts that State employee compensation is consistently below market rates and therefore poses no risk of overcharging Federal programs. Even if BHR’s current assertion that State salaries are below market is accepted, Federal guidance provides that reasonableness in amount is only one factor in determining allowability. Compensation must also follow lawful appointment processes and reflect compliance with State personnel laws. A claim of underpayment is not a compensating control to prevent noncompliance with required classification updates. The following statutes only serve to emphasize the responsibility placed upon BHR and the State Human Resources Officer. Under 5 MRSA 7036, the State Human Resources Officer is explicitly responsible for adopting rules for both classification and compensation plans (7036(I) and (J)), enforcing the Civil Service Law (7036(21)), and conducting both short-term and long-term planning for the State’s personnel system (7036(10)). The Officer is also responsible for responding to reclassification requests (7036(5)) and working closely with agencies on their personnel needs (7036(7)). These statutory responsibilities further confirm that maintaining accurate, up-to-date classification specifications is not discretionary. Moreover, failure to fulfill these legal duties has implications that underscore the purpose of a centralized human resources function. These conditions present a risk to the accessibility to public service employment, including potential delayed hiring decisions and diminished ability to attract and retain a skilled workforce. When classification structures are outdated and statutory mandates are not followed, BHR cannot deliver on its mission. We acknowledge BHR’s consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and its efforts to clarify its interpretation of the law; however, the condition observed during the audit period reflects a neutralization of internal controls and subsequent risk of noncompliance with statutory requirements that directly affect both classification and the allowability of personnel costs under Federal awards. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-0111-01)

(2024-041) Title: Internal control over monitoring of employee classification and compensation needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Human Resources Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Fish and Wildlife Cluster Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Rehabilitation Services – Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 15.605, 15.611, 15.626; 17.225; 84.027, 84.173; 84.126; 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.430; 5 MRSA 7061 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that personal services are rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, total compensation is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity, and follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity’s laws and/or rules or written policies. 5 MRSA 7061 states that the (Bureau of Human Resources (BHR)) director shall record the duties and responsibilities of all positions in State service and establish classes for these positions. The procedure shall provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. Condition: BHR maintains the job classification specifications and related compensation plan of State employees. A specific salary specification and grade is assigned based on the duties and responsibilities referenced in the job classification specification; this represents reasonable compensation for the services rendered for all positions that inhabit a given job classification specification. The assigned salary grade provides a basis for the allowability of compensation costs charged to Federal awards by documenting the reasonableness of compensation for services rendered by State employees, and that the position appointments under the job classification specification were made and maintained in accordance with State statute. While BHR relies on data collected from State agencies to implement procedures regarding the classification plan, BHR retains ultimate oversight responsibility. BHR is the only agency with the authority to modify the classification plan. According to 5 MRSA 7061, BHR must provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 19 job classification specifications for compliance with 5 MRSA 7061. BHR could not provide documentation for 14 of the 19 job classification specifications tested to support that they were updated within five years as required by 5 MRSA 7061. Additionally, BHR’s current tracking mechanism does not effectively identify the dates of the last review and next scheduled review, thus hindering compliance with the statutory five-year cycle. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: • During fiscal year 2024, approximately $139 million in payroll expenditures were charged to Federal grants. This represents approximately ten percent of fiscal year 2024 Statewide payroll expenditures, which totaled $1.3 billion. • BHR was responsible for managing approximately 1,200 job classification specifications in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: State employee job classification and compensation may not accurately reflect the current duties and responsibilities of each position. Without documented evidence that review activities are occurring, BHR cannot ensure that the decisions involving the classification and compensation plan of all State employee positions are properly supported by documentation that accurately reflects the current duties and responsibilities of each position. As a result, this may lead to noncompliance with Federal and State regulations.   Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • enhance oversight regarding the maintenance of the State classification and compensation plan in accordance with State statute; • implement policies and procedures to ensure updates or reviews of the State classification and compensation plan at the job classification specification level are adequately documented; and • implement a tracking mechanism to accurately monitor the dates of past reviews and schedule forthcoming reviews to aid in adherence to the statutory requirement. Corrective Action Plan: See F-19 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The procedure referenced in 5 M.R.S. Sec. 7061(4) is laid out in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. The Department complies with these written policies and procedures as required by federal and state law. Section 7061(4) was last updated in 2023, with an effective date in October 2023. Pursuant to the JSC on Appropriations, Section 7061(4)(A) requires a review every five years of the state compensation plan for each class or position in the classified service. The FJA process is not related to the compensation plan, however, it is administered under a separate internal control structure that is in place and operating effectively and ensures that the compensation for individual employees is reasonable for the services rendered. The requirement for review of each classification through the FJA process is covered under Section 7061(4)(C) and is required to be reviewed every 10 years. It is also important to note that the Department has conferred with the OAG, who determined that Section 7061(4)(C) is not retroactive, meaning the Department has another 8.5 years to complete a review of all classifications. Additionally, salary studies conducted on State employee wages have shown that the salary and wages of job classifications paid by the State are consistently lower than industry averages, removing the risk that the utilization of these salary schedules as a component of payroll costs will cause overcharges to Federal grants. Contact: Michael J. Dunn, Acting State Human Resources Officer, Bureau of Human Resources, DAFS, 207-287-4651 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: OSA acknowledges BHR’s reference to 5 MRSA 7061(4), as amended in October 2023, and the procedures for the classification maintenance outlined in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. We also recognize the distinction BHR draws between the five-year statutory requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) for updating job descriptions and compensation plan components, and the ten-year classification plan review introduced under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). OSA’s review focused on BHR’s compliance with the five-year update requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A). While the statute was amended in 2023, the requirement that job descriptions be updated at least every five years has been in place since 1987. The recent amendment did not create this requirement; it expanded BHR’s obligation by tying the update process to the compensation plan and introducing a separate ten-year comprehensive classification review under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). These changes reflect an intent to strengthen oversight and modernize the State’s personnel system, not to delay or diminish BHR’s statutory responsibilities. To distinguish between BHR’s statutory responsibilities under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) and 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C), subsection (4)(A) requires periodic updating of job descriptions and the compensation plan at least every five years; this ensures that individual job classification specifications remain current and accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of State positions. In contrast, subsection (4)(C), introduced in 2023, requires a broader, ten-year comprehensive review of the classification plan as a whole. The two requirements serve different purposes and operate on separate cycles. The five-year review of individual classifications under subsection (4)(A) remains an ongoing statutory obligation, regardless of the addition of subsection (4)(C). While BHR references its internal procedures under 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4 as evidence of compliance, those procedures do not incorporate or reflect the statutory five-year update requirement in subsection (4)(A) or the ten-year update in subsection (4)(C). Furthermore, BHR could not provide documentation to support that 14 of the 19 job classifications tested by OSA had been reviewed or updated within the required timeframe. BHR does not have a comprehensive system to track classification review dates across the classification plan, making it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the statute or proactively manage updates. Internal policy may guide operations, but compliance is ultimately measured against the statutory requirements that govern those operations. The issues identified in audit testing also have implications for the compensation system. Under 5 MRSA 7065, the State’s compensation plan is developed based on the classification plan, with salary grades assigned to specific job classes according to documented duties and responsibilities. The classification plan is the foundational structure upon which compensation decisions are made. If job descriptions are outdated, or not periodically reviewed as required, positions may be misaligned with inappropriate salary grades, which may lead to pay that does not accurately reflect the nature or complexity of the work, including Federally-funded positions. Without a properly maintained classification system, the State cannot ensure that compensation, whether paid with State or Federal funds, is supported by a valid and compliant classification system. Under 2 CFR 200.430(a)(2), compensation for personal services is allowable under Federal awards only when it follows “an appointment made in accordance with the recipient’s…laws, rules, or written policies.” This Federal regulation places the burden of compliance on the State’s adherence to its own legal framework. The Federal government allows flexibility, but that flexibility hinges on the condition that the State follows its own laws; it is the minimum threshold for allowability requirements over personnel costs. Compliance with this law is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation and direct reflection of the expectations placed on the State by the Legislature and the Federal government. BHR asserts that State employee compensation is consistently below market rates and therefore poses no risk of overcharging Federal programs. Even if BHR’s current assertion that State salaries are below market is accepted, Federal guidance provides that reasonableness in amount is only one factor in determining allowability. Compensation must also follow lawful appointment processes and reflect compliance with State personnel laws. A claim of underpayment is not a compensating control to prevent noncompliance with required classification updates. The following statutes only serve to emphasize the responsibility placed upon BHR and the State Human Resources Officer. Under 5 MRSA 7036, the State Human Resources Officer is explicitly responsible for adopting rules for both classification and compensation plans (7036(I) and (J)), enforcing the Civil Service Law (7036(21)), and conducting both short-term and long-term planning for the State’s personnel system (7036(10)). The Officer is also responsible for responding to reclassification requests (7036(5)) and working closely with agencies on their personnel needs (7036(7)). These statutory responsibilities further confirm that maintaining accurate, up-to-date classification specifications is not discretionary. Moreover, failure to fulfill these legal duties has implications that underscore the purpose of a centralized human resources function. These conditions present a risk to the accessibility to public service employment, including potential delayed hiring decisions and diminished ability to attract and retain a skilled workforce. When classification structures are outdated and statutory mandates are not followed, BHR cannot deliver on its mission. We acknowledge BHR’s consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and its efforts to clarify its interpretation of the law; however, the condition observed during the audit period reflects a neutralization of internal controls and subsequent risk of noncompliance with statutory requirements that directly affect both classification and the allowability of personnel costs under Federal awards. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-0111-01)

(2024-041) Title: Internal control over monitoring of employee classification and compensation needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Human Resources Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Fish and Wildlife Cluster Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Rehabilitation Services – Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 15.605, 15.611, 15.626; 17.225; 84.027, 84.173; 84.126; 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.430; 5 MRSA 7061 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that personal services are rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, total compensation is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity, and follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity’s laws and/or rules or written policies. 5 MRSA 7061 states that the (Bureau of Human Resources (BHR)) director shall record the duties and responsibilities of all positions in State service and establish classes for these positions. The procedure shall provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. Condition: BHR maintains the job classification specifications and related compensation plan of State employees. A specific salary specification and grade is assigned based on the duties and responsibilities referenced in the job classification specification; this represents reasonable compensation for the services rendered for all positions that inhabit a given job classification specification. The assigned salary grade provides a basis for the allowability of compensation costs charged to Federal awards by documenting the reasonableness of compensation for services rendered by State employees, and that the position appointments under the job classification specification were made and maintained in accordance with State statute. While BHR relies on data collected from State agencies to implement procedures regarding the classification plan, BHR retains ultimate oversight responsibility. BHR is the only agency with the authority to modify the classification plan. According to 5 MRSA 7061, BHR must provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 19 job classification specifications for compliance with 5 MRSA 7061. BHR could not provide documentation for 14 of the 19 job classification specifications tested to support that they were updated within five years as required by 5 MRSA 7061. Additionally, BHR’s current tracking mechanism does not effectively identify the dates of the last review and next scheduled review, thus hindering compliance with the statutory five-year cycle. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: • During fiscal year 2024, approximately $139 million in payroll expenditures were charged to Federal grants. This represents approximately ten percent of fiscal year 2024 Statewide payroll expenditures, which totaled $1.3 billion. • BHR was responsible for managing approximately 1,200 job classification specifications in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: State employee job classification and compensation may not accurately reflect the current duties and responsibilities of each position. Without documented evidence that review activities are occurring, BHR cannot ensure that the decisions involving the classification and compensation plan of all State employee positions are properly supported by documentation that accurately reflects the current duties and responsibilities of each position. As a result, this may lead to noncompliance with Federal and State regulations.   Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • enhance oversight regarding the maintenance of the State classification and compensation plan in accordance with State statute; • implement policies and procedures to ensure updates or reviews of the State classification and compensation plan at the job classification specification level are adequately documented; and • implement a tracking mechanism to accurately monitor the dates of past reviews and schedule forthcoming reviews to aid in adherence to the statutory requirement. Corrective Action Plan: See F-19 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The procedure referenced in 5 M.R.S. Sec. 7061(4) is laid out in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. The Department complies with these written policies and procedures as required by federal and state law. Section 7061(4) was last updated in 2023, with an effective date in October 2023. Pursuant to the JSC on Appropriations, Section 7061(4)(A) requires a review every five years of the state compensation plan for each class or position in the classified service. The FJA process is not related to the compensation plan, however, it is administered under a separate internal control structure that is in place and operating effectively and ensures that the compensation for individual employees is reasonable for the services rendered. The requirement for review of each classification through the FJA process is covered under Section 7061(4)(C) and is required to be reviewed every 10 years. It is also important to note that the Department has conferred with the OAG, who determined that Section 7061(4)(C) is not retroactive, meaning the Department has another 8.5 years to complete a review of all classifications. Additionally, salary studies conducted on State employee wages have shown that the salary and wages of job classifications paid by the State are consistently lower than industry averages, removing the risk that the utilization of these salary schedules as a component of payroll costs will cause overcharges to Federal grants. Contact: Michael J. Dunn, Acting State Human Resources Officer, Bureau of Human Resources, DAFS, 207-287-4651 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: OSA acknowledges BHR’s reference to 5 MRSA 7061(4), as amended in October 2023, and the procedures for the classification maintenance outlined in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. We also recognize the distinction BHR draws between the five-year statutory requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) for updating job descriptions and compensation plan components, and the ten-year classification plan review introduced under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). OSA’s review focused on BHR’s compliance with the five-year update requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A). While the statute was amended in 2023, the requirement that job descriptions be updated at least every five years has been in place since 1987. The recent amendment did not create this requirement; it expanded BHR’s obligation by tying the update process to the compensation plan and introducing a separate ten-year comprehensive classification review under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). These changes reflect an intent to strengthen oversight and modernize the State’s personnel system, not to delay or diminish BHR’s statutory responsibilities. To distinguish between BHR’s statutory responsibilities under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) and 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C), subsection (4)(A) requires periodic updating of job descriptions and the compensation plan at least every five years; this ensures that individual job classification specifications remain current and accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of State positions. In contrast, subsection (4)(C), introduced in 2023, requires a broader, ten-year comprehensive review of the classification plan as a whole. The two requirements serve different purposes and operate on separate cycles. The five-year review of individual classifications under subsection (4)(A) remains an ongoing statutory obligation, regardless of the addition of subsection (4)(C). While BHR references its internal procedures under 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4 as evidence of compliance, those procedures do not incorporate or reflect the statutory five-year update requirement in subsection (4)(A) or the ten-year update in subsection (4)(C). Furthermore, BHR could not provide documentation to support that 14 of the 19 job classifications tested by OSA had been reviewed or updated within the required timeframe. BHR does not have a comprehensive system to track classification review dates across the classification plan, making it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the statute or proactively manage updates. Internal policy may guide operations, but compliance is ultimately measured against the statutory requirements that govern those operations. The issues identified in audit testing also have implications for the compensation system. Under 5 MRSA 7065, the State’s compensation plan is developed based on the classification plan, with salary grades assigned to specific job classes according to documented duties and responsibilities. The classification plan is the foundational structure upon which compensation decisions are made. If job descriptions are outdated, or not periodically reviewed as required, positions may be misaligned with inappropriate salary grades, which may lead to pay that does not accurately reflect the nature or complexity of the work, including Federally-funded positions. Without a properly maintained classification system, the State cannot ensure that compensation, whether paid with State or Federal funds, is supported by a valid and compliant classification system. Under 2 CFR 200.430(a)(2), compensation for personal services is allowable under Federal awards only when it follows “an appointment made in accordance with the recipient’s…laws, rules, or written policies.” This Federal regulation places the burden of compliance on the State’s adherence to its own legal framework. The Federal government allows flexibility, but that flexibility hinges on the condition that the State follows its own laws; it is the minimum threshold for allowability requirements over personnel costs. Compliance with this law is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation and direct reflection of the expectations placed on the State by the Legislature and the Federal government. BHR asserts that State employee compensation is consistently below market rates and therefore poses no risk of overcharging Federal programs. Even if BHR’s current assertion that State salaries are below market is accepted, Federal guidance provides that reasonableness in amount is only one factor in determining allowability. Compensation must also follow lawful appointment processes and reflect compliance with State personnel laws. A claim of underpayment is not a compensating control to prevent noncompliance with required classification updates. The following statutes only serve to emphasize the responsibility placed upon BHR and the State Human Resources Officer. Under 5 MRSA 7036, the State Human Resources Officer is explicitly responsible for adopting rules for both classification and compensation plans (7036(I) and (J)), enforcing the Civil Service Law (7036(21)), and conducting both short-term and long-term planning for the State’s personnel system (7036(10)). The Officer is also responsible for responding to reclassification requests (7036(5)) and working closely with agencies on their personnel needs (7036(7)). These statutory responsibilities further confirm that maintaining accurate, up-to-date classification specifications is not discretionary. Moreover, failure to fulfill these legal duties has implications that underscore the purpose of a centralized human resources function. These conditions present a risk to the accessibility to public service employment, including potential delayed hiring decisions and diminished ability to attract and retain a skilled workforce. When classification structures are outdated and statutory mandates are not followed, BHR cannot deliver on its mission. We acknowledge BHR’s consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and its efforts to clarify its interpretation of the law; however, the condition observed during the audit period reflects a neutralization of internal controls and subsequent risk of noncompliance with statutory requirements that directly affect both classification and the allowability of personnel costs under Federal awards. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-0111-01)

(2024-041) Title: Internal control over monitoring of employee classification and compensation needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Human Resources Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Fish and Wildlife Cluster Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Rehabilitation Services – Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 15.605, 15.611, 15.626; 17.225; 84.027, 84.173; 84.126; 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.430; 5 MRSA 7061 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that personal services are rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, total compensation is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity, and follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity’s laws and/or rules or written policies. 5 MRSA 7061 states that the (Bureau of Human Resources (BHR)) director shall record the duties and responsibilities of all positions in State service and establish classes for these positions. The procedure shall provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. Condition: BHR maintains the job classification specifications and related compensation plan of State employees. A specific salary specification and grade is assigned based on the duties and responsibilities referenced in the job classification specification; this represents reasonable compensation for the services rendered for all positions that inhabit a given job classification specification. The assigned salary grade provides a basis for the allowability of compensation costs charged to Federal awards by documenting the reasonableness of compensation for services rendered by State employees, and that the position appointments under the job classification specification were made and maintained in accordance with State statute. While BHR relies on data collected from State agencies to implement procedures regarding the classification plan, BHR retains ultimate oversight responsibility. BHR is the only agency with the authority to modify the classification plan. According to 5 MRSA 7061, BHR must provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 19 job classification specifications for compliance with 5 MRSA 7061. BHR could not provide documentation for 14 of the 19 job classification specifications tested to support that they were updated within five years as required by 5 MRSA 7061. Additionally, BHR’s current tracking mechanism does not effectively identify the dates of the last review and next scheduled review, thus hindering compliance with the statutory five-year cycle. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: • During fiscal year 2024, approximately $139 million in payroll expenditures were charged to Federal grants. This represents approximately ten percent of fiscal year 2024 Statewide payroll expenditures, which totaled $1.3 billion. • BHR was responsible for managing approximately 1,200 job classification specifications in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: State employee job classification and compensation may not accurately reflect the current duties and responsibilities of each position. Without documented evidence that review activities are occurring, BHR cannot ensure that the decisions involving the classification and compensation plan of all State employee positions are properly supported by documentation that accurately reflects the current duties and responsibilities of each position. As a result, this may lead to noncompliance with Federal and State regulations.   Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • enhance oversight regarding the maintenance of the State classification and compensation plan in accordance with State statute; • implement policies and procedures to ensure updates or reviews of the State classification and compensation plan at the job classification specification level are adequately documented; and • implement a tracking mechanism to accurately monitor the dates of past reviews and schedule forthcoming reviews to aid in adherence to the statutory requirement. Corrective Action Plan: See F-19 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The procedure referenced in 5 M.R.S. Sec. 7061(4) is laid out in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. The Department complies with these written policies and procedures as required by federal and state law. Section 7061(4) was last updated in 2023, with an effective date in October 2023. Pursuant to the JSC on Appropriations, Section 7061(4)(A) requires a review every five years of the state compensation plan for each class or position in the classified service. The FJA process is not related to the compensation plan, however, it is administered under a separate internal control structure that is in place and operating effectively and ensures that the compensation for individual employees is reasonable for the services rendered. The requirement for review of each classification through the FJA process is covered under Section 7061(4)(C) and is required to be reviewed every 10 years. It is also important to note that the Department has conferred with the OAG, who determined that Section 7061(4)(C) is not retroactive, meaning the Department has another 8.5 years to complete a review of all classifications. Additionally, salary studies conducted on State employee wages have shown that the salary and wages of job classifications paid by the State are consistently lower than industry averages, removing the risk that the utilization of these salary schedules as a component of payroll costs will cause overcharges to Federal grants. Contact: Michael J. Dunn, Acting State Human Resources Officer, Bureau of Human Resources, DAFS, 207-287-4651 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: OSA acknowledges BHR’s reference to 5 MRSA 7061(4), as amended in October 2023, and the procedures for the classification maintenance outlined in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. We also recognize the distinction BHR draws between the five-year statutory requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) for updating job descriptions and compensation plan components, and the ten-year classification plan review introduced under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). OSA’s review focused on BHR’s compliance with the five-year update requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A). While the statute was amended in 2023, the requirement that job descriptions be updated at least every five years has been in place since 1987. The recent amendment did not create this requirement; it expanded BHR’s obligation by tying the update process to the compensation plan and introducing a separate ten-year comprehensive classification review under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). These changes reflect an intent to strengthen oversight and modernize the State’s personnel system, not to delay or diminish BHR’s statutory responsibilities. To distinguish between BHR’s statutory responsibilities under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) and 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C), subsection (4)(A) requires periodic updating of job descriptions and the compensation plan at least every five years; this ensures that individual job classification specifications remain current and accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of State positions. In contrast, subsection (4)(C), introduced in 2023, requires a broader, ten-year comprehensive review of the classification plan as a whole. The two requirements serve different purposes and operate on separate cycles. The five-year review of individual classifications under subsection (4)(A) remains an ongoing statutory obligation, regardless of the addition of subsection (4)(C). While BHR references its internal procedures under 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4 as evidence of compliance, those procedures do not incorporate or reflect the statutory five-year update requirement in subsection (4)(A) or the ten-year update in subsection (4)(C). Furthermore, BHR could not provide documentation to support that 14 of the 19 job classifications tested by OSA had been reviewed or updated within the required timeframe. BHR does not have a comprehensive system to track classification review dates across the classification plan, making it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the statute or proactively manage updates. Internal policy may guide operations, but compliance is ultimately measured against the statutory requirements that govern those operations. The issues identified in audit testing also have implications for the compensation system. Under 5 MRSA 7065, the State’s compensation plan is developed based on the classification plan, with salary grades assigned to specific job classes according to documented duties and responsibilities. The classification plan is the foundational structure upon which compensation decisions are made. If job descriptions are outdated, or not periodically reviewed as required, positions may be misaligned with inappropriate salary grades, which may lead to pay that does not accurately reflect the nature or complexity of the work, including Federally-funded positions. Without a properly maintained classification system, the State cannot ensure that compensation, whether paid with State or Federal funds, is supported by a valid and compliant classification system. Under 2 CFR 200.430(a)(2), compensation for personal services is allowable under Federal awards only when it follows “an appointment made in accordance with the recipient’s…laws, rules, or written policies.” This Federal regulation places the burden of compliance on the State’s adherence to its own legal framework. The Federal government allows flexibility, but that flexibility hinges on the condition that the State follows its own laws; it is the minimum threshold for allowability requirements over personnel costs. Compliance with this law is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation and direct reflection of the expectations placed on the State by the Legislature and the Federal government. BHR asserts that State employee compensation is consistently below market rates and therefore poses no risk of overcharging Federal programs. Even if BHR’s current assertion that State salaries are below market is accepted, Federal guidance provides that reasonableness in amount is only one factor in determining allowability. Compensation must also follow lawful appointment processes and reflect compliance with State personnel laws. A claim of underpayment is not a compensating control to prevent noncompliance with required classification updates. The following statutes only serve to emphasize the responsibility placed upon BHR and the State Human Resources Officer. Under 5 MRSA 7036, the State Human Resources Officer is explicitly responsible for adopting rules for both classification and compensation plans (7036(I) and (J)), enforcing the Civil Service Law (7036(21)), and conducting both short-term and long-term planning for the State’s personnel system (7036(10)). The Officer is also responsible for responding to reclassification requests (7036(5)) and working closely with agencies on their personnel needs (7036(7)). These statutory responsibilities further confirm that maintaining accurate, up-to-date classification specifications is not discretionary. Moreover, failure to fulfill these legal duties has implications that underscore the purpose of a centralized human resources function. These conditions present a risk to the accessibility to public service employment, including potential delayed hiring decisions and diminished ability to attract and retain a skilled workforce. When classification structures are outdated and statutory mandates are not followed, BHR cannot deliver on its mission. We acknowledge BHR’s consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and its efforts to clarify its interpretation of the law; however, the condition observed during the audit period reflects a neutralization of internal controls and subsequent risk of noncompliance with statutory requirements that directly affect both classification and the allowability of personnel costs under Federal awards. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-0111-01)

(2024-041) Title: Internal control over monitoring of employee classification and compensation needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Human Resources Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Fish and Wildlife Cluster Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Rehabilitation Services – Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 15.605, 15.611, 15.626; 17.225; 84.027, 84.173; 84.126; 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.430; 5 MRSA 7061 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that personal services are rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, total compensation is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity, and follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity’s laws and/or rules or written policies. 5 MRSA 7061 states that the (Bureau of Human Resources (BHR)) director shall record the duties and responsibilities of all positions in State service and establish classes for these positions. The procedure shall provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. Condition: BHR maintains the job classification specifications and related compensation plan of State employees. A specific salary specification and grade is assigned based on the duties and responsibilities referenced in the job classification specification; this represents reasonable compensation for the services rendered for all positions that inhabit a given job classification specification. The assigned salary grade provides a basis for the allowability of compensation costs charged to Federal awards by documenting the reasonableness of compensation for services rendered by State employees, and that the position appointments under the job classification specification were made and maintained in accordance with State statute. While BHR relies on data collected from State agencies to implement procedures regarding the classification plan, BHR retains ultimate oversight responsibility. BHR is the only agency with the authority to modify the classification plan. According to 5 MRSA 7061, BHR must provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 19 job classification specifications for compliance with 5 MRSA 7061. BHR could not provide documentation for 14 of the 19 job classification specifications tested to support that they were updated within five years as required by 5 MRSA 7061. Additionally, BHR’s current tracking mechanism does not effectively identify the dates of the last review and next scheduled review, thus hindering compliance with the statutory five-year cycle. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: • During fiscal year 2024, approximately $139 million in payroll expenditures were charged to Federal grants. This represents approximately ten percent of fiscal year 2024 Statewide payroll expenditures, which totaled $1.3 billion. • BHR was responsible for managing approximately 1,200 job classification specifications in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: State employee job classification and compensation may not accurately reflect the current duties and responsibilities of each position. Without documented evidence that review activities are occurring, BHR cannot ensure that the decisions involving the classification and compensation plan of all State employee positions are properly supported by documentation that accurately reflects the current duties and responsibilities of each position. As a result, this may lead to noncompliance with Federal and State regulations.   Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • enhance oversight regarding the maintenance of the State classification and compensation plan in accordance with State statute; • implement policies and procedures to ensure updates or reviews of the State classification and compensation plan at the job classification specification level are adequately documented; and • implement a tracking mechanism to accurately monitor the dates of past reviews and schedule forthcoming reviews to aid in adherence to the statutory requirement. Corrective Action Plan: See F-19 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The procedure referenced in 5 M.R.S. Sec. 7061(4) is laid out in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. The Department complies with these written policies and procedures as required by federal and state law. Section 7061(4) was last updated in 2023, with an effective date in October 2023. Pursuant to the JSC on Appropriations, Section 7061(4)(A) requires a review every five years of the state compensation plan for each class or position in the classified service. The FJA process is not related to the compensation plan, however, it is administered under a separate internal control structure that is in place and operating effectively and ensures that the compensation for individual employees is reasonable for the services rendered. The requirement for review of each classification through the FJA process is covered under Section 7061(4)(C) and is required to be reviewed every 10 years. It is also important to note that the Department has conferred with the OAG, who determined that Section 7061(4)(C) is not retroactive, meaning the Department has another 8.5 years to complete a review of all classifications. Additionally, salary studies conducted on State employee wages have shown that the salary and wages of job classifications paid by the State are consistently lower than industry averages, removing the risk that the utilization of these salary schedules as a component of payroll costs will cause overcharges to Federal grants. Contact: Michael J. Dunn, Acting State Human Resources Officer, Bureau of Human Resources, DAFS, 207-287-4651 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: OSA acknowledges BHR’s reference to 5 MRSA 7061(4), as amended in October 2023, and the procedures for the classification maintenance outlined in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. We also recognize the distinction BHR draws between the five-year statutory requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) for updating job descriptions and compensation plan components, and the ten-year classification plan review introduced under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). OSA’s review focused on BHR’s compliance with the five-year update requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A). While the statute was amended in 2023, the requirement that job descriptions be updated at least every five years has been in place since 1987. The recent amendment did not create this requirement; it expanded BHR’s obligation by tying the update process to the compensation plan and introducing a separate ten-year comprehensive classification review under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). These changes reflect an intent to strengthen oversight and modernize the State’s personnel system, not to delay or diminish BHR’s statutory responsibilities. To distinguish between BHR’s statutory responsibilities under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) and 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C), subsection (4)(A) requires periodic updating of job descriptions and the compensation plan at least every five years; this ensures that individual job classification specifications remain current and accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of State positions. In contrast, subsection (4)(C), introduced in 2023, requires a broader, ten-year comprehensive review of the classification plan as a whole. The two requirements serve different purposes and operate on separate cycles. The five-year review of individual classifications under subsection (4)(A) remains an ongoing statutory obligation, regardless of the addition of subsection (4)(C). While BHR references its internal procedures under 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4 as evidence of compliance, those procedures do not incorporate or reflect the statutory five-year update requirement in subsection (4)(A) or the ten-year update in subsection (4)(C). Furthermore, BHR could not provide documentation to support that 14 of the 19 job classifications tested by OSA had been reviewed or updated within the required timeframe. BHR does not have a comprehensive system to track classification review dates across the classification plan, making it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the statute or proactively manage updates. Internal policy may guide operations, but compliance is ultimately measured against the statutory requirements that govern those operations. The issues identified in audit testing also have implications for the compensation system. Under 5 MRSA 7065, the State’s compensation plan is developed based on the classification plan, with salary grades assigned to specific job classes according to documented duties and responsibilities. The classification plan is the foundational structure upon which compensation decisions are made. If job descriptions are outdated, or not periodically reviewed as required, positions may be misaligned with inappropriate salary grades, which may lead to pay that does not accurately reflect the nature or complexity of the work, including Federally-funded positions. Without a properly maintained classification system, the State cannot ensure that compensation, whether paid with State or Federal funds, is supported by a valid and compliant classification system. Under 2 CFR 200.430(a)(2), compensation for personal services is allowable under Federal awards only when it follows “an appointment made in accordance with the recipient’s…laws, rules, or written policies.” This Federal regulation places the burden of compliance on the State’s adherence to its own legal framework. The Federal government allows flexibility, but that flexibility hinges on the condition that the State follows its own laws; it is the minimum threshold for allowability requirements over personnel costs. Compliance with this law is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation and direct reflection of the expectations placed on the State by the Legislature and the Federal government. BHR asserts that State employee compensation is consistently below market rates and therefore poses no risk of overcharging Federal programs. Even if BHR’s current assertion that State salaries are below market is accepted, Federal guidance provides that reasonableness in amount is only one factor in determining allowability. Compensation must also follow lawful appointment processes and reflect compliance with State personnel laws. A claim of underpayment is not a compensating control to prevent noncompliance with required classification updates. The following statutes only serve to emphasize the responsibility placed upon BHR and the State Human Resources Officer. Under 5 MRSA 7036, the State Human Resources Officer is explicitly responsible for adopting rules for both classification and compensation plans (7036(I) and (J)), enforcing the Civil Service Law (7036(21)), and conducting both short-term and long-term planning for the State’s personnel system (7036(10)). The Officer is also responsible for responding to reclassification requests (7036(5)) and working closely with agencies on their personnel needs (7036(7)). These statutory responsibilities further confirm that maintaining accurate, up-to-date classification specifications is not discretionary. Moreover, failure to fulfill these legal duties has implications that underscore the purpose of a centralized human resources function. These conditions present a risk to the accessibility to public service employment, including potential delayed hiring decisions and diminished ability to attract and retain a skilled workforce. When classification structures are outdated and statutory mandates are not followed, BHR cannot deliver on its mission. We acknowledge BHR’s consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and its efforts to clarify its interpretation of the law; however, the condition observed during the audit period reflects a neutralization of internal controls and subsequent risk of noncompliance with statutory requirements that directly affect both classification and the allowability of personnel costs under Federal awards. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-0111-01)

(2024-042) Title: Internal control over HAF Program reporting and earmarking needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Professional and Financial Regulation State Bureau: Consumer Credit Protection Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Assistance Listing Title: Homeowner Assistance Fund Program (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 21.026 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Matching, level of effort, earmarking Reporting Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, Section 3206; 15 USC 9058d(c)(2) The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must submit quarterly reports providing financial and performance data regarding administration of the Homeowner Assistance Fund (HAF) Program that include financial data, targeting data, and other information. The Department is also required to submit an annual report to the U.S. Department of the Treasury regarding the impact of the HAF Program. The HAF Program’s earmarking requirements include: • counseling or educational efforts targeted to households eligible to be served related to foreclosure prevention or displacement, in an aggregate amount up to five percent of the funding received by the HAF participant. • planning, community engagement, needs assessment, and administrative expenses for qualified expenses, in an aggregate amount not to exceed 15 percent of the funding received by the HAF participant. If the HAF participant has only received the initial ten percent of its allocation, no more than 50 percent of the initial payment is permitted to be used for the expenses mentioned. • participants providing not less than 60 percent of funds to homeowners with income less than 100 percent Area Median Income (AMI) or 100 percent of U.S. median income. • participants should target homeowners that are classified as Socially Disadvantaged Individuals and 100 percent AMI or less. Condition: The Department contracts with a subrecipient to administer the HAF Program. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Department and the subrecipient outlines the following: • The subrecipient is responsible for preparation of all required reporting under the HAF Program. • The Department is responsible for certification and submission of all reports prepared by the subrecipient. During fiscal year 2024, four quarterly financial reports and one annual performance report for the HAF Program were required to be submitted to the Federal government. The MOU requires Department certification and submission of all HAF Program reports; however, the subrecipient prepared and certified all required reports during fiscal year 2024 with no oversight from the Department. In addition, the Department did not maintain records of any fiscal year 2024 HAF Program financial or performance reports or supporting documentation. The Department solicited the reports from the subrecipient only after the Office of the State Auditor’s (OSA) request for audit documentation. The Department subsequently provided OSA with all reports in response to the audit request; however, the Department could not provide documentation to support: • the Department’s review of each financial and performance report prepared by the subrecipient, as it did not occur prior to certification and submission by the subrecipient. • amounts reported on the State’s fiscal year 2024 HAF Program financial and performance reports. • amounts reported on key line items for HAF Program earmarking requirements and related obligation and expenditure totals. The Department has no assurance that HAF Program reports prepared by the subrecipient and submitted to the Federal government on behalf of the State are accurate or properly supported. In addition, the Department has no assurance that the HAF Program was in compliance with Federal requirements for earmarking, as supporting documentation for such compliance is part of the subrecipient’s reporting process. Furthermore, OSA was unable to verify the accuracy of submitted reports or compliance with earmarking requirements, as supporting documentation was not maintained. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the Department expended $29.4 million in HAF Program funds; the entire amount was passed through to the subrecipient. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate policies and procedures Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • HAF Program reports, including earmarking requirements, submitted to the Federal government are not properly supported and may not be accurate as documentation is not reviewed or maintained by the Department. • Incomplete or inaccurate HAF Program reports may result in incorrect information used by the Federal government for programmatic, policy, or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department establish and implement policies and procedures to require a documented review and approval of all HAF Program reports and related earmarking requirements prepared by the subrecipient, prior to certification and submission by the Department as required by the established MOU. This will ensure that information reported to the Federal government is accurate, complete, and properly supported, and that earmarking requirements have been met. Corrective Action Plan: See F-20 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Department will establish and implement additional policies and procedures for this program. The Department will require that the subrecipient submit the required program and financial reports to the department for review prior to submission to the federal agency starting with the reporting period ending March 2025 reporting period. Contact: Rachel Hendsbee, Director, Administrative Services Division, Department of Professional and Financial Regulation, 207-624-8500 (State Number: 24-1698-01)

(2024-043) Title: Internal control over HAF Program subrecipient monitoring needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Professional and Financial Regulation State Bureau: Consumer Credit Protection Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Assistance Listing Title: Homeowner Assistance Fund Program (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 21.026 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Subrecipient monitoring Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.332 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must: • evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring procedures. • verify that the subrecipient is audited as required when a subrecipient’s Federal award expenditures are expected to equal or exceed $750,000 during the fiscal year. • monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. Condition: The Homeowner Assistance Fund (HAF) Program provides funding to mitigate financial hardships associated with the pandemic, including preventing homeowner mortgage delinquencies, defaults, foreclosures, and loss of utilities or home energy services and displacements of homeowners experiencing financial hardships. In fiscal year 2024, the Department passed through HAF Program funds to one subrecipient responsible for administering the program. The Department contracted with a vendor to perform all subrecipient monitoring for the HAF Program; however, only one monitoring report for the first quarter of fiscal year 2024 had been received by the Department at the time of audit testing in February 2025. No subrecipient monitoring information was received by the Department during the actual use of the grant award in fiscal year 2024. As a result, the Department had no assurance in fiscal year 2024 that: • the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward was evaluated for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring procedures. • the subrecipient received a Single Audit as required. The Office of the State Auditor reviewed the quarterly monitoring report received from the vendor and noted that the subrecipient’s Single Audit requirement and related monitoring was not addressed. • the activities of the subrecipient were monitored as necessary to ensure that the subaward was used for authorized purposes and in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward, and that subaward performance goals were achieved. In addition to untimely vendor subrecipient monitoring reports, the Department’s review and approval of subrecipient reimbursement requests was not adequately designed, as submission of detailed expenditure information with the subrecipient’s requests for reimbursement of HAF Program funds was not required. A summary spreadsheet outlining actual and projected expenditures for the second-tier subrecipient was the only support provided to the Department with each reimbursement request, which does not provide adequate detail to ensure that the subaward was used for authorized purposes. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the Department expended $29.4 million in HAF Program funds; the entire amount was passed through to the subrecipient. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate policies and procedures Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Lack of ongoing or adequate subrecipient monitoring procedures could result in subrecipient noncompliance that would go undetected during the award term. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that: • all Federal award program subrecipients of the Department are subject to ongoing monitoring activities during the grant award term. • detailed documentation in support of subrecipient reimbursement requests is received prior to payment approval. Corrective Action Plan: See F-20 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Department has contracted with a vendor to perform subrecipient monitoring of the HAF program. The Department will ensure that subrecipient reports adequately detail expenditures. Contact: Rachel Hendsbee, Director, Administrative Services Division, Department of Professional and Financial Regulation, 207-624-8500 (State Number: 24-1698-02)

(2024-044) Title: Internal control over CSLFRF reporting needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Security and Employment Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Assistance Listing Title: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 21.027 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.332(b); 2 CFR 200.510 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must maintain accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with reporting requirements. The Department must prepare a Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for the period covered by the State’s financial statements which must include the total Federal awards expended. At a minimum, the SEFA must provide total Federal awards expended for each individual Federal program and the Assistance Listing Number (ALN) and include the total amount provided to subrecipients from each Federal program. Condition: The Department of Administrative and Financial Services’ Security and Employment Service Center (SESC) is responsible for accurately recording information needed to report on the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) Quarterly Project and Expenditure Reports. Information from these CSLFRF reports is used by the Office of the State Controller for SEFA preparation. The Office of the State Auditor reviewed amounts reported on the SEFA and identified $9.7 million of Federal expenditures incorrectly reported as amounts provided to subrecipients that should have been reported as direct expenditures. SESC inaccurately identified vendors as subrecipients. As a result, vendor payments were incorrectly classified as subrecipient payments on the CSLFRF Quarterly Project and Expenditure Reports and were incorrectly included in the initial amount reported on the SEFA as amounts provided to subrecipients. Context: Payments to the providers totaled $9.7 million of the $209.6 million in fiscal year 2024 CSLFRF expenditures. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Incomplete or inaccurate reporting of expenditures on the CSLFRF reports and SEFA, which are submitted to the Federal government, may result in incorrect information used for programmatic, policy or statistical purposes. • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement policies and procedures to ensure contractors and subrecipients are appropriately classified and reported on the CSLFRF Quarterly Project and Expenditure Reports and SEFA. Corrective Action Plan: See F-20 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Security and Employment Service will continue to work with our partner agencies to help ensure the sub-recipient/vendor classification is appropriately determined when the initial contracts are written. In this case, the contracts ended in July 2023 and the contracting agency did not amend the contracts to change the classification. Contact: Marilyn Leimbach, Director, SESC, DAFS, 207-248-2556 (State Number: 24-1699-03)

(2024-045) Title: Internal control over CSLFRF subrecipient risk evaluation procedures needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Labor State Bureau: Commissioner’s Office Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Assistance Listing Title: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 21.027 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Subrecipient monitoring Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.332 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department is required to evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in 2 CFR 200.332. Condition: As part of the American Rescue Plan Act, the State was advanced approximately $997 million in Federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) to support its response to and recovery from the COVID-19 public health emergency. The Maine Department of Labor (MDOL) partnered with subrecipients to support the administration of CSLFRF. MDOL has a documented policy that requires subrecipient risk evaluations. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 44 subrecipients paid by various State agencies under CSLFRF, including five MDOL subrecipients, to ensure that proper subrecipient monitoring was performed as required by Federal regulations. MDOL subrecipient monitoring procedures included providing Federal award information in grant award agreements, communicating program guidelines, establishing reporting requirements, providing technical assistance, and communicating with the subrecipients to discuss program performance; however, MDOL could not provide evidence to demonstrate that monitoring procedures were established in response to an evaluation of the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance for the five MDOL subrecipients tested. OSA selected a nonstatistical random sample. Context: During fiscal year 2024, the Department provided $5.8 million to 39 MDOL subrecipients, from a total of $137.9 million provided to all CSLFRF subrecipients. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate procedures Effect: Subrecipients that are deemed higher risk may not be monitored on a more frequent basis. Conversely, subrecipients that are deemed lower risk may not be monitored on a less frequent basis, which would free resources and time to dedicate towards other higher risk subrecipients. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance oversight over policies and procedures that require evaluation of each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance specifically for the purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring to be performed. This will ensure subrecipients are monitored appropriately based on risk designation. Corrective Action Plan: See F-20 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. MDOL received funds via the Maine Jobs and Recovery Plan to accomplish several goals across 20 unique initiatives. To best meet the goals of several initiatives, MDOL selected various partners to work with - via a competitive Request for Applications (RFA) process or other contractual arrangement. MDOL’s competitive RFA process required evaluating individual applicants’ previous experience in managing grants and delivering similar programs, which directly correlated with selection criteria and grantee scoring. After selection, grantees are required to submit quarterly performance reports and participate in grantee check-in calls at least twice per year. For grantees not on track to meet their performance goals, monthly calls were held with interim progress milestones set to track performance. While the above procedures were implemented for all subrecipients, going forward, the Department will document that monitoring procedures were established in response to an evaluation of the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance. Contact: Kimberley Moore, Director, Bureau of Employment Services, MDOL, 207-620-0183 (State Number: 24-1699-04)

(2024-046) Title: Internal control over CSLFRF subrecipient cash management needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Division of Contract Management Office of Aging and Disability Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Assistance Listing Title: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 21.027 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Cash management Subrecipient monitoring Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.305 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department is required to monitor cash drawdowns by their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the payment of Federal funds to the subrecipient and the subrecipient’s actual disbursement for program purposes is minimized. Condition: The Department’s Division of Contract Management (DCM) has three methods for providing payments to subrecipients: cost-settled, cost-settled by invoice, and fee-for-service subawards. • For cost-settled subawards, DCM procedures include making equal advance monthly payments and then reconciling those amounts to the quarterly financial reports submitted by the subrecipient. This procedure does not take into consideration the time elapsing between the payment of Federal funds to the subrecipient and the subrecipient’s actual disbursement for program purposes. • For “cost-settled by invoice” (reimbursement) subawards, DCM procedures do not require subrecipients to include supporting documentation with monthly requests for reimbursement nor do they request supporting documentation at a subsequent date. This procedure does not take into consideration the time elapsing between the payment of Federal funds to the subrecipient and the subrecipient’s actual disbursement for program purposes. • Cash management requirements are not applicable for fee-for-service subawards. The Office of Aging and Disability Services (OADS) is responsible for ensuring its subrecipients that received Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) comply with Federal requirements; however, OADS’ subrecipient monitoring procedures do not include review of subrecipient compliance with cash management requirements. All of the CSLFRF subawards from OADS are cost-settled. Therefore, DCM and OADS procedures do not support that subrecipient cash management is properly monitored as required by Federal regulations. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the Department provided $1.5 million to OADS subrecipients from CSLFRF grant funds totaling $209.6 million. Cause: • Lack of adequate subrecipient monitoring procedures • Lack of centralized oversight of subrecipient monitoring Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Federal programs may not be effectively and efficiently administered. • The Federal government may require the implementation of more stringent subrecipient cash management procedures. Recommendation: We recommend that OADS collaborate with DCM to implement monitoring procedures over subrecipient cash management requirements to ensure that the time elapsing between the payment of Federal funds to the subrecipient and the subrecipient’s actual disbursement for program purposes is minimized for the CSLFRF program. Corrective Action Plan: See F-20 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The Department is in compliance with the requirement for minimizing the time between payments to our subrecipients and the disbursement of funds. Payments are made as close as administratively feasible. The Compliance Supplement suggested audit procedures for Cash Management for pass-through entities refers to 200.305(b)(1)...that same paragraph states that the timing and amount of advance payments must be as close as is administratively feasible. Contact: Anthony Madden, Deputy Director, Division of Audit, DHHS, 207-287-2834 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department’s interpretation of the applicable Federal regulation selectively emphasizes a single sentence from the broader paragraph, omitting critical context that informs the regulation’s full intent. According to the 2024 Compliance Supplement, pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of Federal funds to the subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized as required by the applicable cash management requirements in the Federal award to the recipient (2 CFR section 200.305(b)(1)). 2 CFR section 200.305(b)(1) states that the recipient or subrecipient must be paid in advance, provided it maintains or demonstrates the willingness to maintain both written procedures that minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds and disbursement by the recipient or subrecipient, and financial management systems that meet the standards for fund control and accountability as established in this part. Advance payments to a recipient or subrecipient must be limited to the minimum amounts needed and be timed with actual, immediate cash requirements of the recipient or subrecipient in carrying out the purpose of the approved program or project. The timing and amount of advance payments must be as close as is administratively feasible to the actual disbursements by the recipient or subrecipient for direct program or project costs and the proportionate share of any allowable indirect costs. The recipient or subrecipient must make timely payments to contractors in accordance with the contract provisions. The Department references the phrase “as close as is administratively feasible” to justify their current process; however, this phrase is part of a broader requirement that establishes specific conditions for advance payments. The regulation requires that the timing between when the subrecipient receives Federal funds from the State and when the subrecipient disburses those funds is closely monitored to ensure that disbursements align with actual, immediate cash needs. A full reading of the provision indicates that “administratively feasible” does not negate the obligation to implement effective controls that minimize this gap, nor does it permit delays or inadequate oversight in Federal cash management. The Department could not provide evidence to demonstrate that they adequately monitored subrecipient cash drawdowns to ensure alignment with actual, immediate cash needs. Additionally, the Department does not require subrecipients to submit invoice documentation to substantiate the timing, amount, or nature of expenditures included in the request of Federal funds. As a result, the Department cannot demonstrate an adequate level of monitoring, as there is no evidence that they collect the necessary information to ensure compliance with Federal cash management requirements. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1699-05)

(2024-047) Title: Internal control over Special Education period of performance needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Education Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Special Services & Inclusive Education General Government Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Assistance Listing Title: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Period of performance Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 84.027 $7,303 Likely Questioned Costs: ALN 84.027 $31,768; likely questioned costs were projected by dividing the known questioned costs identified in the sample by total Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award expenditures tested to establish an error rate, then applying that error rate to total Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award expenditures paid in fiscal year 2024. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 34 CFR 76.703 and .709 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. The Department must obligate Federal award funds during the 27-month period of performance, extending from July 1 of the fiscal year for which the funds were appropriated through September 30 of the second following fiscal year. Condition: The Department of Education’s (DOE) Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education, in conjunction with the Department of Administrative and Financial Services’ General Government Service Center (GGSC), administers Federal funding received through the Special Education Cluster (SEC) program. The SEC program provides grants to states, and through them to Local Education Agencies (LEAs), to assist in providing special education and related services to eligible children. DOE and GGSC procedures include review and approval of requests for reimbursement from LEAs and other programmatic costs including payroll, administrative expenditures, and awards to subrecipients of State-level activities. This review includes a determination of whether the costs are obligated within the applicable Federal award’s period of performance through a comparison of billing dates and billing periods to grant award terms. Period of performance Federal regulations applicable to the SEC program in fiscal year 2024 relate to the Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award. The award’s obligation period ended September 30, 2023, and the liquidation period ended 120 calendar days following, on January 28, 2024. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 expenditure transactions that occurred during the Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award’s liquidation period to ensure that the expenditures were obligated and liquidated in accordance with Federal regulations. OSA identified five transactions totaling $7,303 where obligations occurred after September 30, 2023. Therefore, these transactions did not meet Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award’s period of performance requirements and are not allowable under the terms of the award. As a result, OSA identified questioned costs totaling $7,303. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the Department expended $68.2 million in SEC program funds. Of this total, $5.8 million of Federal fiscal year 2022 grant funds was expended during the award’s liquidation period which occurred during fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of adequate procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance procedures and increase oversight to ensure that obligation of grant funds is made within period of performance requirements established in the terms and conditions of Federal grant awards. Corrective Action Plan: See F-21 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education has developed and will implement a corrective action plan to address the issue identified. Contact: Barbara McGowen, Director of Financial Management, Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education, DOE, 207-624-6645 (State Number: 24-1201-01)

(2024-047) Title: Internal control over Special Education period of performance needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Education Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Special Services & Inclusive Education General Government Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Assistance Listing Title: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Period of performance Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 84.027 $7,303 Likely Questioned Costs: ALN 84.027 $31,768; likely questioned costs were projected by dividing the known questioned costs identified in the sample by total Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award expenditures tested to establish an error rate, then applying that error rate to total Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award expenditures paid in fiscal year 2024. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 34 CFR 76.703 and .709 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. The Department must obligate Federal award funds during the 27-month period of performance, extending from July 1 of the fiscal year for which the funds were appropriated through September 30 of the second following fiscal year. Condition: The Department of Education’s (DOE) Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education, in conjunction with the Department of Administrative and Financial Services’ General Government Service Center (GGSC), administers Federal funding received through the Special Education Cluster (SEC) program. The SEC program provides grants to states, and through them to Local Education Agencies (LEAs), to assist in providing special education and related services to eligible children. DOE and GGSC procedures include review and approval of requests for reimbursement from LEAs and other programmatic costs including payroll, administrative expenditures, and awards to subrecipients of State-level activities. This review includes a determination of whether the costs are obligated within the applicable Federal award’s period of performance through a comparison of billing dates and billing periods to grant award terms. Period of performance Federal regulations applicable to the SEC program in fiscal year 2024 relate to the Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award. The award’s obligation period ended September 30, 2023, and the liquidation period ended 120 calendar days following, on January 28, 2024. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 expenditure transactions that occurred during the Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award’s liquidation period to ensure that the expenditures were obligated and liquidated in accordance with Federal regulations. OSA identified five transactions totaling $7,303 where obligations occurred after September 30, 2023. Therefore, these transactions did not meet Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award’s period of performance requirements and are not allowable under the terms of the award. As a result, OSA identified questioned costs totaling $7,303. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the Department expended $68.2 million in SEC program funds. Of this total, $5.8 million of Federal fiscal year 2022 grant funds was expended during the award’s liquidation period which occurred during fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of adequate procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance procedures and increase oversight to ensure that obligation of grant funds is made within period of performance requirements established in the terms and conditions of Federal grant awards. Corrective Action Plan: See F-21 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education has developed and will implement a corrective action plan to address the issue identified. Contact: Barbara McGowen, Director of Financial Management, Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education, DOE, 207-624-6645 (State Number: 24-1201-01)

(2024-047) Title: Internal control over Special Education period of performance needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Education Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Special Services & Inclusive Education General Government Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Assistance Listing Title: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Period of performance Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 84.027 $7,303 Likely Questioned Costs: ALN 84.027 $31,768; likely questioned costs were projected by dividing the known questioned costs identified in the sample by total Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award expenditures tested to establish an error rate, then applying that error rate to total Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award expenditures paid in fiscal year 2024. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 34 CFR 76.703 and .709 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. The Department must obligate Federal award funds during the 27-month period of performance, extending from July 1 of the fiscal year for which the funds were appropriated through September 30 of the second following fiscal year. Condition: The Department of Education’s (DOE) Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education, in conjunction with the Department of Administrative and Financial Services’ General Government Service Center (GGSC), administers Federal funding received through the Special Education Cluster (SEC) program. The SEC program provides grants to states, and through them to Local Education Agencies (LEAs), to assist in providing special education and related services to eligible children. DOE and GGSC procedures include review and approval of requests for reimbursement from LEAs and other programmatic costs including payroll, administrative expenditures, and awards to subrecipients of State-level activities. This review includes a determination of whether the costs are obligated within the applicable Federal award’s period of performance through a comparison of billing dates and billing periods to grant award terms. Period of performance Federal regulations applicable to the SEC program in fiscal year 2024 relate to the Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award. The award’s obligation period ended September 30, 2023, and the liquidation period ended 120 calendar days following, on January 28, 2024. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 expenditure transactions that occurred during the Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award’s liquidation period to ensure that the expenditures were obligated and liquidated in accordance with Federal regulations. OSA identified five transactions totaling $7,303 where obligations occurred after September 30, 2023. Therefore, these transactions did not meet Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award’s period of performance requirements and are not allowable under the terms of the award. As a result, OSA identified questioned costs totaling $7,303. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the Department expended $68.2 million in SEC program funds. Of this total, $5.8 million of Federal fiscal year 2022 grant funds was expended during the award’s liquidation period which occurred during fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of adequate procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance procedures and increase oversight to ensure that obligation of grant funds is made within period of performance requirements established in the terms and conditions of Federal grant awards. Corrective Action Plan: See F-21 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education has developed and will implement a corrective action plan to address the issue identified. Contact: Barbara McGowen, Director of Financial Management, Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education, DOE, 207-624-6645 (State Number: 24-1201-01)

(2024-047) Title: Internal control over Special Education period of performance needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Education Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Special Services & Inclusive Education General Government Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Assistance Listing Title: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Period of performance Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 84.027 $7,303 Likely Questioned Costs: ALN 84.027 $31,768; likely questioned costs were projected by dividing the known questioned costs identified in the sample by total Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award expenditures tested to establish an error rate, then applying that error rate to total Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award expenditures paid in fiscal year 2024. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 34 CFR 76.703 and .709 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. The Department must obligate Federal award funds during the 27-month period of performance, extending from July 1 of the fiscal year for which the funds were appropriated through September 30 of the second following fiscal year. Condition: The Department of Education’s (DOE) Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education, in conjunction with the Department of Administrative and Financial Services’ General Government Service Center (GGSC), administers Federal funding received through the Special Education Cluster (SEC) program. The SEC program provides grants to states, and through them to Local Education Agencies (LEAs), to assist in providing special education and related services to eligible children. DOE and GGSC procedures include review and approval of requests for reimbursement from LEAs and other programmatic costs including payroll, administrative expenditures, and awards to subrecipients of State-level activities. This review includes a determination of whether the costs are obligated within the applicable Federal award’s period of performance through a comparison of billing dates and billing periods to grant award terms. Period of performance Federal regulations applicable to the SEC program in fiscal year 2024 relate to the Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award. The award’s obligation period ended September 30, 2023, and the liquidation period ended 120 calendar days following, on January 28, 2024. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 expenditure transactions that occurred during the Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award’s liquidation period to ensure that the expenditures were obligated and liquidated in accordance with Federal regulations. OSA identified five transactions totaling $7,303 where obligations occurred after September 30, 2023. Therefore, these transactions did not meet Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award’s period of performance requirements and are not allowable under the terms of the award. As a result, OSA identified questioned costs totaling $7,303. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the Department expended $68.2 million in SEC program funds. Of this total, $5.8 million of Federal fiscal year 2022 grant funds was expended during the award’s liquidation period which occurred during fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of adequate procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance procedures and increase oversight to ensure that obligation of grant funds is made within period of performance requirements established in the terms and conditions of Federal grant awards. Corrective Action Plan: See F-21 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education has developed and will implement a corrective action plan to address the issue identified. Contact: Barbara McGowen, Director of Financial Management, Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education, DOE, 207-624-6645 (State Number: 24-1201-01)

(2024-048) Title: Internal control over Special Education level of effort needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Education State Bureau: Commissioner’s Office Special Services & Inclusive Education Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Assistance Listing Title: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Matching, level of effort, earmarking Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 34 CFR 300.163 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. As part of the Special Education program’s level of effort, referred to as maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements, a State must not reduce the amount of State financial support for special education and related services for children with disabilities, or otherwise made available because of the excess costs of educating those children, below the amount of that support for the preceding fiscal year. This is referred to as the State’s Maintenance of State Financial Support (MSFS). Condition: The Department of Education’s (DOE) School Finance and Operations team within the Commissioner’s Office, in conjunction with DOE’s Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education, is responsible for gathering, preparing, and compiling the State’s MSFS data. The MSFS data includes State funds spent on Special Education as well as a calculation of per pupil State support for Special Education. This data, accumulated in a spreadsheet by DOE personnel, is included on DOE’s annual application under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). DOE’s application review procedures include the Commissioner certifying that the State has met the MSFS for grant funds made available for Special Education and related services for children with disabilities prior to submission to the Federal government. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested the fiscal year 2024 MSFS calculation and identified that outdated data was used in three formulas in the spreadsheet. While the State’s MSFS was calculated incorrectly, OSA was able to verify that the Department met MOE requirements for fiscal year 2024, which was the greater of: • $481,309,366 for total State financial support made available to Special Education and related services for children with disabilities; or • $13,470 for per capita amount of State financial support. Context: On the fiscal year 2024 IDEA Part B application, the Department reported $484,482,061 for the MSFS; however, $496,227,407 should have been reported. Cause: • Lack of adequate procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • The Department is required to maintain a certain level of State financial support. An inaccurate MSFS calculation could result in the Department not meeting MOE requirements. • Inaccurate information reported to the Federal government may be used for programmatic, policy or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance procedures to ensure that the MSFS data reported to the Federal government is accurate and complete prior to submission. Corrective Action Plan: See F-21 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education has developed and will implement a corrective action plan to address the issue identified. Contact: Barbara McGowen, Director of Financial Management, Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education, DOE, 207-624-6645 (State Number: 24-1201-02)

(2024-048) Title: Internal control over Special Education level of effort needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Education State Bureau: Commissioner’s Office Special Services & Inclusive Education Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Assistance Listing Title: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Matching, level of effort, earmarking Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 34 CFR 300.163 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. As part of the Special Education program’s level of effort, referred to as maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements, a State must not reduce the amount of State financial support for special education and related services for children with disabilities, or otherwise made available because of the excess costs of educating those children, below the amount of that support for the preceding fiscal year. This is referred to as the State’s Maintenance of State Financial Support (MSFS). Condition: The Department of Education’s (DOE) School Finance and Operations team within the Commissioner’s Office, in conjunction with DOE’s Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education, is responsible for gathering, preparing, and compiling the State’s MSFS data. The MSFS data includes State funds spent on Special Education as well as a calculation of per pupil State support for Special Education. This data, accumulated in a spreadsheet by DOE personnel, is included on DOE’s annual application under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). DOE’s application review procedures include the Commissioner certifying that the State has met the MSFS for grant funds made available for Special Education and related services for children with disabilities prior to submission to the Federal government. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested the fiscal year 2024 MSFS calculation and identified that outdated data was used in three formulas in the spreadsheet. While the State’s MSFS was calculated incorrectly, OSA was able to verify that the Department met MOE requirements for fiscal year 2024, which was the greater of: • $481,309,366 for total State financial support made available to Special Education and related services for children with disabilities; or • $13,470 for per capita amount of State financial support. Context: On the fiscal year 2024 IDEA Part B application, the Department reported $484,482,061 for the MSFS; however, $496,227,407 should have been reported. Cause: • Lack of adequate procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • The Department is required to maintain a certain level of State financial support. An inaccurate MSFS calculation could result in the Department not meeting MOE requirements. • Inaccurate information reported to the Federal government may be used for programmatic, policy or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance procedures to ensure that the MSFS data reported to the Federal government is accurate and complete prior to submission. Corrective Action Plan: See F-21 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education has developed and will implement a corrective action plan to address the issue identified. Contact: Barbara McGowen, Director of Financial Management, Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education, DOE, 207-624-6645 (State Number: 24-1201-02)

(2024-048) Title: Internal control over Special Education level of effort needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Education State Bureau: Commissioner’s Office Special Services & Inclusive Education Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Assistance Listing Title: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Matching, level of effort, earmarking Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 34 CFR 300.163 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. As part of the Special Education program’s level of effort, referred to as maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements, a State must not reduce the amount of State financial support for special education and related services for children with disabilities, or otherwise made available because of the excess costs of educating those children, below the amount of that support for the preceding fiscal year. This is referred to as the State’s Maintenance of State Financial Support (MSFS). Condition: The Department of Education’s (DOE) School Finance and Operations team within the Commissioner’s Office, in conjunction with DOE’s Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education, is responsible for gathering, preparing, and compiling the State’s MSFS data. The MSFS data includes State funds spent on Special Education as well as a calculation of per pupil State support for Special Education. This data, accumulated in a spreadsheet by DOE personnel, is included on DOE’s annual application under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). DOE’s application review procedures include the Commissioner certifying that the State has met the MSFS for grant funds made available for Special Education and related services for children with disabilities prior to submission to the Federal government. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested the fiscal year 2024 MSFS calculation and identified that outdated data was used in three formulas in the spreadsheet. While the State’s MSFS was calculated incorrectly, OSA was able to verify that the Department met MOE requirements for fiscal year 2024, which was the greater of: • $481,309,366 for total State financial support made available to Special Education and related services for children with disabilities; or • $13,470 for per capita amount of State financial support. Context: On the fiscal year 2024 IDEA Part B application, the Department reported $484,482,061 for the MSFS; however, $496,227,407 should have been reported. Cause: • Lack of adequate procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • The Department is required to maintain a certain level of State financial support. An inaccurate MSFS calculation could result in the Department not meeting MOE requirements. • Inaccurate information reported to the Federal government may be used for programmatic, policy or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance procedures to ensure that the MSFS data reported to the Federal government is accurate and complete prior to submission. Corrective Action Plan: See F-21 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education has developed and will implement a corrective action plan to address the issue identified. Contact: Barbara McGowen, Director of Financial Management, Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education, DOE, 207-624-6645 (State Number: 24-1201-02)

(2024-048) Title: Internal control over Special Education level of effort needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Education State Bureau: Commissioner’s Office Special Services & Inclusive Education Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Assistance Listing Title: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Matching, level of effort, earmarking Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 34 CFR 300.163 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. As part of the Special Education program’s level of effort, referred to as maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements, a State must not reduce the amount of State financial support for special education and related services for children with disabilities, or otherwise made available because of the excess costs of educating those children, below the amount of that support for the preceding fiscal year. This is referred to as the State’s Maintenance of State Financial Support (MSFS). Condition: The Department of Education’s (DOE) School Finance and Operations team within the Commissioner’s Office, in conjunction with DOE’s Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education, is responsible for gathering, preparing, and compiling the State’s MSFS data. The MSFS data includes State funds spent on Special Education as well as a calculation of per pupil State support for Special Education. This data, accumulated in a spreadsheet by DOE personnel, is included on DOE’s annual application under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). DOE’s application review procedures include the Commissioner certifying that the State has met the MSFS for grant funds made available for Special Education and related services for children with disabilities prior to submission to the Federal government. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested the fiscal year 2024 MSFS calculation and identified that outdated data was used in three formulas in the spreadsheet. While the State’s MSFS was calculated incorrectly, OSA was able to verify that the Department met MOE requirements for fiscal year 2024, which was the greater of: • $481,309,366 for total State financial support made available to Special Education and related services for children with disabilities; or • $13,470 for per capita amount of State financial support. Context: On the fiscal year 2024 IDEA Part B application, the Department reported $484,482,061 for the MSFS; however, $496,227,407 should have been reported. Cause: • Lack of adequate procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • The Department is required to maintain a certain level of State financial support. An inaccurate MSFS calculation could result in the Department not meeting MOE requirements. • Inaccurate information reported to the Federal government may be used for programmatic, policy or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance procedures to ensure that the MSFS data reported to the Federal government is accurate and complete prior to submission. Corrective Action Plan: See F-21 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education has developed and will implement a corrective action plan to address the issue identified. Contact: Barbara McGowen, Director of Financial Management, Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education, DOE, 207-624-6645 (State Number: 24-1201-02)

(2024-049) Title: Internal control over ESF subrecipient monitoring procedures needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Commissioner’s Office Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Assistance Listing Title: Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 84.425D, 84.425R, 84.425U Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Subrecipient monitoring Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.313; 2 CFR 200.332 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing the award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. For equipment acquired with Federal funding, records must be maintained that include: • a description and identification number; • the source of funding, including the Federal Award Identification Number; • who holds title and the acquisition date; • the cost of the property, including the percentage of Federal participation in the project costs for the Federal award under which the property was acquired; • the location, use and condition; and • any ultimate disposition data including the date of disposal and sale price of the property. A physical inventory of the property must be taken and the results reconciled with the property records at least once every two years. A control system must be developed to ensure adequate safeguards to prevent loss, damage, or theft of the property. Any loss, damage, or theft must be investigated. The Department must monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward, and that subaward performance goals are achieved. Condition: The Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) provides funding to school administrative units (SAUs) to purchase equipment for use in preventing, preparing for, or responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. All SAU equipment purchases reimbursed with ESF are subject to applicable inventory control, log maintenance, and disposition requirements consistent with Federal regulations for equipment and real property management. In the fiscal year 2022 and 2023 audits, the Office of the State Auditor identified that the Department did not have procedures in place to track SAU equipment purchases reimbursed with ESF. During fiscal year 2024, the Department developed policies and procedures to track SAU equipment purchases reimbursed with ESF. These procedures outline documentation to be obtained from SAUs during the next subrecipient monitoring activity. Because the Department has not completed the subrecipient monitoring to obtain the necessary documentation, the Department does not have assurance that: • a complete and accurate record of all equipment purchased with ESF was maintained by each SAU. • subrecipients are in compliance with Federal regulations for equipment and real property management. Context: In fiscal year 2024, ESF expenditures totaled $194.1 million, of which $175.1 million was paid to subrecipient SAUs. Because a complete and accurate record of equipment purchased with ESF is not maintained, the amount of equipment purchased in fiscal year 2024 is unknown. Cause: • Newly developed policies and procedures have not been fully implemented. • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • SAUs may not be in compliance with equipment and real property management requirements. • Recordkeeping for assets purchased with ESF is not adequate, and as a result, the assets may not be properly safeguarded. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department conduct necessary subrecipient monitoring activities to ensure that a complete and accurate record of all equipment purchased with ESF is maintained by the Department and by each SAU. This record should be documented and maintained in order to verify ongoing compliance with Federal regulations for equipment and real property management. Corrective Action Plan: See F-21 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The former Office of Federal Emergency Relief Programs will incorporate the collection of this information in the fiscal year 2024 and 2025 annual performance report. All equipment purchased with ESF will be self-reported by each individual School Administrative Unit. Contact: Shelly Chasse-Johndro, Director, ESEA, DOE, 207-458-3180 (State Number: 24-1235-01)

(2024-049) Title: Internal control over ESF subrecipient monitoring procedures needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Commissioner’s Office Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Assistance Listing Title: Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 84.425D, 84.425R, 84.425U Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Subrecipient monitoring Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.313; 2 CFR 200.332 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing the award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. For equipment acquired with Federal funding, records must be maintained that include: • a description and identification number; • the source of funding, including the Federal Award Identification Number; • who holds title and the acquisition date; • the cost of the property, including the percentage of Federal participation in the project costs for the Federal award under which the property was acquired; • the location, use and condition; and • any ultimate disposition data including the date of disposal and sale price of the property. A physical inventory of the property must be taken and the results reconciled with the property records at least once every two years. A control system must be developed to ensure adequate safeguards to prevent loss, damage, or theft of the property. Any loss, damage, or theft must be investigated. The Department must monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward, and that subaward performance goals are achieved. Condition: The Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) provides funding to school administrative units (SAUs) to purchase equipment for use in preventing, preparing for, or responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. All SAU equipment purchases reimbursed with ESF are subject to applicable inventory control, log maintenance, and disposition requirements consistent with Federal regulations for equipment and real property management. In the fiscal year 2022 and 2023 audits, the Office of the State Auditor identified that the Department did not have procedures in place to track SAU equipment purchases reimbursed with ESF. During fiscal year 2024, the Department developed policies and procedures to track SAU equipment purchases reimbursed with ESF. These procedures outline documentation to be obtained from SAUs during the next subrecipient monitoring activity. Because the Department has not completed the subrecipient monitoring to obtain the necessary documentation, the Department does not have assurance that: • a complete and accurate record of all equipment purchased with ESF was maintained by each SAU. • subrecipients are in compliance with Federal regulations for equipment and real property management. Context: In fiscal year 2024, ESF expenditures totaled $194.1 million, of which $175.1 million was paid to subrecipient SAUs. Because a complete and accurate record of equipment purchased with ESF is not maintained, the amount of equipment purchased in fiscal year 2024 is unknown. Cause: • Newly developed policies and procedures have not been fully implemented. • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • SAUs may not be in compliance with equipment and real property management requirements. • Recordkeeping for assets purchased with ESF is not adequate, and as a result, the assets may not be properly safeguarded. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department conduct necessary subrecipient monitoring activities to ensure that a complete and accurate record of all equipment purchased with ESF is maintained by the Department and by each SAU. This record should be documented and maintained in order to verify ongoing compliance with Federal regulations for equipment and real property management. Corrective Action Plan: See F-21 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The former Office of Federal Emergency Relief Programs will incorporate the collection of this information in the fiscal year 2024 and 2025 annual performance report. All equipment purchased with ESF will be self-reported by each individual School Administrative Unit. Contact: Shelly Chasse-Johndro, Director, ESEA, DOE, 207-458-3180 (State Number: 24-1235-01)

(2024-049) Title: Internal control over ESF subrecipient monitoring procedures needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Commissioner’s Office Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Assistance Listing Title: Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 84.425D, 84.425R, 84.425U Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Subrecipient monitoring Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.313; 2 CFR 200.332 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing the award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. For equipment acquired with Federal funding, records must be maintained that include: • a description and identification number; • the source of funding, including the Federal Award Identification Number; • who holds title and the acquisition date; • the cost of the property, including the percentage of Federal participation in the project costs for the Federal award under which the property was acquired; • the location, use and condition; and • any ultimate disposition data including the date of disposal and sale price of the property. A physical inventory of the property must be taken and the results reconciled with the property records at least once every two years. A control system must be developed to ensure adequate safeguards to prevent loss, damage, or theft of the property. Any loss, damage, or theft must be investigated. The Department must monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward, and that subaward performance goals are achieved. Condition: The Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) provides funding to school administrative units (SAUs) to purchase equipment for use in preventing, preparing for, or responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. All SAU equipment purchases reimbursed with ESF are subject to applicable inventory control, log maintenance, and disposition requirements consistent with Federal regulations for equipment and real property management. In the fiscal year 2022 and 2023 audits, the Office of the State Auditor identified that the Department did not have procedures in place to track SAU equipment purchases reimbursed with ESF. During fiscal year 2024, the Department developed policies and procedures to track SAU equipment purchases reimbursed with ESF. These procedures outline documentation to be obtained from SAUs during the next subrecipient monitoring activity. Because the Department has not completed the subrecipient monitoring to obtain the necessary documentation, the Department does not have assurance that: • a complete and accurate record of all equipment purchased with ESF was maintained by each SAU. • subrecipients are in compliance with Federal regulations for equipment and real property management. Context: In fiscal year 2024, ESF expenditures totaled $194.1 million, of which $175.1 million was paid to subrecipient SAUs. Because a complete and accurate record of equipment purchased with ESF is not maintained, the amount of equipment purchased in fiscal year 2024 is unknown. Cause: • Newly developed policies and procedures have not been fully implemented. • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • SAUs may not be in compliance with equipment and real property management requirements. • Recordkeeping for assets purchased with ESF is not adequate, and as a result, the assets may not be properly safeguarded. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department conduct necessary subrecipient monitoring activities to ensure that a complete and accurate record of all equipment purchased with ESF is maintained by the Department and by each SAU. This record should be documented and maintained in order to verify ongoing compliance with Federal regulations for equipment and real property management. Corrective Action Plan: See F-21 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The former Office of Federal Emergency Relief Programs will incorporate the collection of this information in the fiscal year 2024 and 2025 annual performance report. All equipment purchased with ESF will be self-reported by each individual School Administrative Unit. Contact: Shelly Chasse-Johndro, Director, ESEA, DOE, 207-458-3180 (State Number: 24-1235-01)

(2024-050) Title: Internal control over ICA program subrecipient cash management needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Division of Contract Management Maine Center for Disease Control & Prevention Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Immunization Cooperative Agreements (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.268 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Cash management Subrecipient monitoring Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.305; 2 CFR 200.332 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department is required to monitor cash drawdowns by their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the payment of Federal funds to the subrecipient and the subrecipient’s actual disbursement for program purposes is minimized. The Department must monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that subawards are used for authorized purposes and in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward. Condition: The Department’s Division of Contract Management (DCM) has three methods for providing payments to subrecipients: cost-settled, cost-settled by invoice, and fee-for-service subawards. • For cost-settled subawards, DCM procedures include making equal advance monthly payments and then reconciling those amounts to the quarterly financial reports submitted by the subrecipient. This procedure does not take into consideration the time elapsing between the payment of Federal funds to the subrecipient and the subrecipient’s actual disbursement for program purposes. • For “cost-settled by invoice” (reimbursement) subawards, DCM procedures do not require subrecipients to include supporting documentation with monthly requests for reimbursement nor do they request supporting documentation at a subsequent date. This procedure does not take into consideration the time elapsing between the payment of Federal funds to the subrecipient and the subrecipient’s actual disbursement for program purposes. • Cash management requirements are not applicable for fee-for-service subawards. Maine Center for Disease Control & Prevention (MeCDC) is responsible for ensuring the Immunization Cooperative Agreement (ICA) program’s subrecipients comply with Federal requirements; however, MeCDC’s subrecipient monitoring procedures do not include review of subrecipient compliance with cash management requirements. The ICA program’s subawards are either cost-settled or cost-settled by invoice. Therefore, DCM and MeCDC procedures do not support that subrecipient cash management is properly monitored as required by Federal regulations. Additionally, MeCDC’s monitoring procedures do not include review of subrecipient invoices to ensure ICA grant funds are used for allowable purposes. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the Department provided $1.9 million to subrecipients from ICA grant funds totaling $31.1 million. Cause: • Lack of adequate subrecipient monitoring procedures • Lack of centralized oversight of subrecipient monitoring Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Federal programs may not be effectively and efficiently administered. • The Federal government may require the implementation of more stringent subrecipient cash management procedures. Recommendation: We recommend that MeCDC: • collaborate with DCM to implement monitoring procedures over subrecipient cash management requirements to ensure that the time elapsing between the payment of Federal funds to the subrecipient and the subrecipient’s actual disbursement for program purposes is minimized for the ICA program. • implement monitoring procedures over ICA program subrecipients to ensure that grant funds are used for allowable purposes. Corrective Action Plan: See F-22 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The Department is in compliance with the requirement for minimizing the time between payments to our subrecipients and the disbursement of funds. Payments are made as close as administratively feasible. The Compliance Supplement suggested audit procedures for Cash Management for pass-through entities refers to 200.305(b)(1)...that same paragraph states that the timing and amount of advance payments must be as close as is administratively feasible. Contact: Anthony Madden, Deputy Director, Division of Audit, DHHS, 207-287-2834 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department’s interpretation of the applicable Federal regulation selectively emphasizes a single sentence from the broader paragraph, omitting critical context that informs the regulation’s full intent. According to the 2024 Compliance Supplement, pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of Federal funds to the subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized as required by the applicable cash management requirements in the Federal award to the recipient (2 CFR section 200.305(b)(1)). 2 CFR section 200.305(b)(1) states that the recipient or subrecipient must be paid in advance, provided it maintains or demonstrates the willingness to maintain both written procedures that minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds and disbursement by the recipient or subrecipient, and financial management systems that meet the standards for fund control and accountability as established in this part. Advance payments to a recipient or subrecipient must be limited to the minimum amounts needed and be timed with actual, immediate cash requirements of the recipient or subrecipient in carrying out the purpose of the approved program or project. The timing and amount of advance payments must be as close as is administratively feasible to the actual disbursements by the recipient or subrecipient for direct program or project costs and the proportionate share of any allowable indirect costs. The recipient or subrecipient must make timely payments to contractors in accordance with the contract provisions. The Department references the phrase “as close as is administratively feasible” to justify their current process; however, this phrase is part of a broader requirement that establishes specific conditions for advance payments. The regulation requires that the timing between when the subrecipient receives Federal funds from the State and when the subrecipient disburses those funds is closely monitored to ensure that disbursements align with actual, immediate cash needs. A full reading of the provision indicates that “administratively feasible” does not negate the obligation to implement effective controls that minimize this gap, nor does it permit delays or inadequate oversight in Federal cash management. The Department could not provide evidence to demonstrate that they adequately monitored subrecipient cash drawdowns to ensure alignment with actual, immediate cash needs. Additionally, the Department does not require subrecipients to submit invoice documentation to substantiate the timing, amount, or nature of expenditures included in the request of Federal funds. As a result, the Department cannot demonstrate an adequate level of monitoring, as there is no evidence that they collect the necessary information to ensure compliance with Federal cash management requirements. Furthermore, the Department did not comment on the lack of monitoring procedures over subrecipient invoices to ensure Federal grant funds are used for allowable purposes. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1118-01)

(2024-050) Title: Internal control over ICA program subrecipient cash management needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Division of Contract Management Maine Center for Disease Control & Prevention Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Immunization Cooperative Agreements (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.268 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Cash management Subrecipient monitoring Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.305; 2 CFR 200.332 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department is required to monitor cash drawdowns by their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the payment of Federal funds to the subrecipient and the subrecipient’s actual disbursement for program purposes is minimized. The Department must monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that subawards are used for authorized purposes and in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward. Condition: The Department’s Division of Contract Management (DCM) has three methods for providing payments to subrecipients: cost-settled, cost-settled by invoice, and fee-for-service subawards. • For cost-settled subawards, DCM procedures include making equal advance monthly payments and then reconciling those amounts to the quarterly financial reports submitted by the subrecipient. This procedure does not take into consideration the time elapsing between the payment of Federal funds to the subrecipient and the subrecipient’s actual disbursement for program purposes. • For “cost-settled by invoice” (reimbursement) subawards, DCM procedures do not require subrecipients to include supporting documentation with monthly requests for reimbursement nor do they request supporting documentation at a subsequent date. This procedure does not take into consideration the time elapsing between the payment of Federal funds to the subrecipient and the subrecipient’s actual disbursement for program purposes. • Cash management requirements are not applicable for fee-for-service subawards. Maine Center for Disease Control & Prevention (MeCDC) is responsible for ensuring the Immunization Cooperative Agreement (ICA) program’s subrecipients comply with Federal requirements; however, MeCDC’s subrecipient monitoring procedures do not include review of subrecipient compliance with cash management requirements. The ICA program’s subawards are either cost-settled or cost-settled by invoice. Therefore, DCM and MeCDC procedures do not support that subrecipient cash management is properly monitored as required by Federal regulations. Additionally, MeCDC’s monitoring procedures do not include review of subrecipient invoices to ensure ICA grant funds are used for allowable purposes. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the Department provided $1.9 million to subrecipients from ICA grant funds totaling $31.1 million. Cause: • Lack of adequate subrecipient monitoring procedures • Lack of centralized oversight of subrecipient monitoring Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Federal programs may not be effectively and efficiently administered. • The Federal government may require the implementation of more stringent subrecipient cash management procedures. Recommendation: We recommend that MeCDC: • collaborate with DCM to implement monitoring procedures over subrecipient cash management requirements to ensure that the time elapsing between the payment of Federal funds to the subrecipient and the subrecipient’s actual disbursement for program purposes is minimized for the ICA program. • implement monitoring procedures over ICA program subrecipients to ensure that grant funds are used for allowable purposes. Corrective Action Plan: See F-22 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The Department is in compliance with the requirement for minimizing the time between payments to our subrecipients and the disbursement of funds. Payments are made as close as administratively feasible. The Compliance Supplement suggested audit procedures for Cash Management for pass-through entities refers to 200.305(b)(1)...that same paragraph states that the timing and amount of advance payments must be as close as is administratively feasible. Contact: Anthony Madden, Deputy Director, Division of Audit, DHHS, 207-287-2834 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department’s interpretation of the applicable Federal regulation selectively emphasizes a single sentence from the broader paragraph, omitting critical context that informs the regulation’s full intent. According to the 2024 Compliance Supplement, pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of Federal funds to the subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized as required by the applicable cash management requirements in the Federal award to the recipient (2 CFR section 200.305(b)(1)). 2 CFR section 200.305(b)(1) states that the recipient or subrecipient must be paid in advance, provided it maintains or demonstrates the willingness to maintain both written procedures that minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds and disbursement by the recipient or subrecipient, and financial management systems that meet the standards for fund control and accountability as established in this part. Advance payments to a recipient or subrecipient must be limited to the minimum amounts needed and be timed with actual, immediate cash requirements of the recipient or subrecipient in carrying out the purpose of the approved program or project. The timing and amount of advance payments must be as close as is administratively feasible to the actual disbursements by the recipient or subrecipient for direct program or project costs and the proportionate share of any allowable indirect costs. The recipient or subrecipient must make timely payments to contractors in accordance with the contract provisions. The Department references the phrase “as close as is administratively feasible” to justify their current process; however, this phrase is part of a broader requirement that establishes specific conditions for advance payments. The regulation requires that the timing between when the subrecipient receives Federal funds from the State and when the subrecipient disburses those funds is closely monitored to ensure that disbursements align with actual, immediate cash needs. A full reading of the provision indicates that “administratively feasible” does not negate the obligation to implement effective controls that minimize this gap, nor does it permit delays or inadequate oversight in Federal cash management. The Department could not provide evidence to demonstrate that they adequately monitored subrecipient cash drawdowns to ensure alignment with actual, immediate cash needs. Additionally, the Department does not require subrecipients to submit invoice documentation to substantiate the timing, amount, or nature of expenditures included in the request of Federal funds. As a result, the Department cannot demonstrate an adequate level of monitoring, as there is no evidence that they collect the necessary information to ensure compliance with Federal cash management requirements. Furthermore, the Department did not comment on the lack of monitoring procedures over subrecipient invoices to ensure Federal grant funds are used for allowable purposes. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1118-01)

(2024-051) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-22 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0906-01)

(2024-051) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-22 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0906-01)

(2024-052) Title: Internal control over payments made to TANF clients needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Assistance Listing Number: 93.558 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Activities allowed or unallowed Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 93.558 $1,014 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; incorrectly calculating Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits may result in overpayments or underpayments to clients. Since there are known overpayments and underpayments in our sample, a projection of questioned costs cannot be reasonably estimated. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 45 CFR 263.11 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. The Department must use Federal TANF funds for expenditures that are reasonably calculated to accomplish the purposes of TANF. Use of funds in violation of this is considered misuse of funds. Condition: The Department issues TANF payments directly to TANF clients for various items and services, and to providers on behalf of TANF clients for services rendered such as child care and transportation. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 payments and found that: • one payment issued in July 2023 overpaid a TANF client a total of $200 for clothing. An advance allowance of $200 was issued to the TANF client; however, the TANF client did not submit a receipt substantiating the purchase as required. OSA is questioning costs totaling $200. • four payments issued for transportation were calculated by the Department using a distance other than the most direct route as required. The payments include: o one payment issued in August 2023 that overpaid a TANF client a total of $87. Upon further review, OSA found an additional $524 that was overpaid to the client during fiscal year 2024. OSA is questioning costs totaling $611. o one payment issued in August 2023 that overpaid a TANF client a total of $8. Upon further review, OSA found an additional $107 was overpaid to the client during fiscal year 2024. OSA is questioning costs totaling $115. o one payment issued in March 2024 that overpaid a TANF client a total of $1. Upon further review, OSA found an additional $15 that was overpaid to the client during fiscal year 2024. OSA is questioning costs totaling $16. o one payment issued in October 2023 that underpaid a TANF client a total of $2. Upon further review, OSA found an additional $17 that was underpaid to the client during fiscal year 2024. • two payments issued in June 2024 overpaid a TANF household a total of $72 for transportation. Two $36 bus passes were paid for two clients in the same household, prior to determining program eligibility. OSA is questioning costs totaling $72. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, payments to TANF clients for services other than direct cash benefits totaled $2.3 million. Cause: • Lack of adequate procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • implement additional procedures to ensure that payments made to TANF clients are accurate, allowable, and adequately documented; • increase monitoring procedures over these payments; and • establish recoupments for the identified overpayments. Corrective Action Plan: See F-22 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. The Department agrees with and acknowledges both the Condition Statement and the first two Recommendations contained in this finding as reflected in the Departments corrective action plan. The third Recommendation, establish recoupments for the identified overpayments, is already a business process within the OFI Overpayments Team. For clarity, the TANF team ‘refers’ as per policies established in Rule and the Overpayments Team ‘establishes recoupments’. Contact: Ian Yaffe, Director, Office for Family Independence, DHHS, 207-592-1481 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: OSA acknowledges the Department’s assertion that the establishment of recoupments for identified overpayments is an existing business process; however, current procedures are not adequate. This is evidenced by the six overpayments identified in the Condition for which recoupments had not yet been established as of audit testing. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1111-05)

(2024-053) Title: Internal control over Income Eligibility and Verification System procedures needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Assistance Listing Number: 93.558 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Eligibility Special tests and provisions Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 45 CFR 205.55 and .56 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department is required to comply with Federal Income Eligibility and Verification System (IEVS) exchange rules and regulations in accordance with program agreements. The Department is required to request through IEVS: • wage information from the State Wage Information Collection Agency (SWICA) for all applicants at the first opportunity following receipt of the application and for all recipients on a quarterly basis; • unemployment compensation information from the agency administering the State’s unemployment compensation program; • all available information maintained by the Social Security Administration; • unearned income information from the Internal Revenue Service; and • any income or other information affecting eligibility available from agencies in the State or other states. The Department is required to resolve all discrepancies identified through IEVS reports within 45 days of receipt. Condition: IEVS is used to exchange information among State and Federal agencies to verify various information needed to determine eligibility for Federal financial assistance. This information is updated in the Automated Client Eligibility System (ACES) to ensure eligibility determinations are made based on current information. IEVS generates various discrepancy reports on a weekly, monthly, and quarterly basis. The Department is required to resolve all discrepancies identified through IEVS within 45 days of receipt and document the resolution in ACES. Federal guidance over the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program outlines audit procedures to ensure that the State has established and implemented the required IEVS exchange for data matching and verification of such data. These procedures include testing a sample of TANF cases subject to IEVS. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) requested a list of TANF cases subject to IEVS for testing purposes; in response, the Department provided OSA with all IEVS discrepancy reports run in fiscal year 2024. The reports provided by the Department contained TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid/Medicare cases and did not have specific Federal program indicators for the entirety of fiscal year 2024. The Department began adding specific Federal program indicators in October 2023; therefore, without a population of TANF-specific cases for July through September 2023, OSA is unable to verify that the program is in compliance with Federal IEVS requirements. For the remaining reports provided for fiscal year 2024 where the Federal program indicator was noted, OSA tested 70 TANF-specific IEVS discrepancies and found: • one resolution was not documented in ACES. • four discrepancies were resolved between 26 and 125 days past the 45-day requirement. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. In addition, the Department disclosed that no reviews of the Quarterly Income Discrepancy Reports were completed during fiscal year 2024. As a result, wage information from SWICA was not utilized to ensure eligibility determinations were made based on current information. Context: 224 IEVS reports are required to be generated annually. Of the 224 reports generated, OSA tested 126 reports and was unable to test 98 reports to ensure compliance with Federal IEVS requirements. The number of TANF discrepancies on each report can vary. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • IEVS information may not be updated timely in ACES, which could result in incorrect eligibility determinations. • Failure to maintain documentation to support compliance with required TANF exchange rules may result in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services penalizing the State up to two percent of the grant award. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department increase oversight to ensure that all discrepancies identified through IEVS are resolved within 45 days of receipt and documented in ACES. Corrective Action Plan: See F-23 Management’s Response: The Department agrees resources need to be dedicated to complete the review of the SWICA reports. Implementation of program indicators on IEVS reports began in October of 2023 for the purpose of assisting OSA in their testing. OSA had received all reports, containing all data necessary to conduct testing. It should be noted this requirement has no utility in current eligibility determinations due to the age of the data. Contact: Ian Yaffe, Director, Office for Family Independence, DHHS, 207-592-1481 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: As stated in the Condition, program indicators on IEVS reports began in October 2023; therefore, OFI could not provide a population of TANF-specific cases for July through September 2023. As a result, OSA is unable to verify that the program is in compliance with Federal IEVS requirements. Additionally, while the Department agrees “resources need to be dedicated to complete the review of the SWICA reports,” the Department did not comment on the noncompliance identified by OSA in testing the Federal IEVS requirements. 45 CFR 205.56 requires the Department to review and compare information obtained from each data exchange against information contained in case records to determine whether the applicant or recipient’s eligibility or the amount of assistance is affected. If the information is received during the application period, the Department shall use such information, to the extent possible, in making the eligibility determination. Therefore, the extent to which the utility of this requirement is affected by “the age of the data” has a direct correlation to the Department’s ability to process the information contained in each data exchange in a timely manner. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1111-02)

(2024-054) Title: Internal control over TANF client child support sanction procedures needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Assistance Listing Number: 93.558 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Special tests and provisions Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 45 CFR 264.30; 42 USC 608(a)(2) The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. If the Department determines that an individual is not cooperating with child support enforcement requirements, the Department is required to sanction the individual by deducting an amount equal to not less than 25 percent from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) assistance that would otherwise be provided to the family of the individual and may deny the family any TANF assistance. Condition: The Division of Support Enforcement and Recovery (DSER) is responsible for enforcing child support requirements for clients receiving benefits from the TANF program, which is administered by the Office for Family Independence (OFI). When individuals not cooperating with child support enforcement requirements are identified, DSER personnel initiate a sanction memo in the Child Support Enforcement of Maine (CSEME) system indicating the date of noncooperation with child support requirements. A sanction request is then emailed, with the memo attached, to TANF personnel. After receiving the emailed sanction request, TANF personnel review the individual’s case and determine if a sanction should be applied. The child support sanction process is documented in DSER policy, which specifies that failing to generate and attach the sanction memo to the emailed request will deem the referral invalid. TANF procedures, however, include processing sanction requests with or without an attached sanction memo. Federal guidance requires the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) to develop audit procedures in order to test a sample of individual sanction requests referred to TANF by DSER. For this reason, OSA requested a list of all fiscal year 2024 sanction requests referred to TANF by DSER. In response, DSER provided a report of all sanction memos initiated in the CSEME system with dates of noncooperation during fiscal year 2024; however, this report does not represent an accurate and complete population for audit testing, as the referral action occurs subsequent to the initiation of a sanction memo and outside of the CSEME system, through email. Additional documentation representative of a complete population could not be provided, as TANF does not have policies and procedures in place to ensure that documentation of all individual sanction requests referred to TANF by DSER is properly maintained. As a result, OSA is unable to test to ensure OFI is in compliance with child support sanction requirements. Context: DSER provided a report of 469 sanction memos initiated for fiscal year 2024. The number of sanction requests that were made but omitted from the DSER list is unknown. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Noncompliant clients may be paid benefits that they are not entitled to receive. • Failure to maintain appropriate documentation to demonstrate compliance with Federal program sanction requirements may result in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services penalizing the State up to five percent of the grant award. Recommendation: We recommend that OFI establish procedures to ensure all child support sanction requests can be provided so that audit procedures can be performed in accordance with Federal regulations. We further recommend that OFI increase oversight to ensure compliance with Federal requirements. Corrective Action Plan: See F-23 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The audit objective identified in the Compliance Supplement is to “Determine whether, after notification by the state Title IV-D agency, the TANF agency has taken necessary action to reduce or deny TANF assistance.” One of the two suggested audit procedures is to “Test a sample of cases referred by the Title IV-D agency to the TANF agency to ascertain if benefits were reduced or denied as required.” The Department spent a lot of time and effort attempting to validate for OSA that it had a testable population, and the Department believes that the Office of State Auditor can perform this procedure either with the DSER-provided report of referrals or with that report in conjunction with the additional material (including active sanction activity within the fiscal year as provided by OFI) the Department has pulled and analyzed for OSA. In the absence of that review nothing in the Department’s records, data, or discussions with OSA could reasonably be interpreted to suggest a “significant deficiency” in its Internal Controls over this aspect of the TANF program. There has not been any evidence that referrals made from DSER to OFI are getting lost, ignored, or misapplied. Contact: Ian Yaffe, Director, Office for Family Independence, DHHS, 207-592-1481 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards. The significant deficiency identified within the Condition is not the result of disagreements over the interpretation of Federal regulations or related audit objectives and testing procedures, it is related to internal control. A significant deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance with requirements of a Federal program on a timely basis. The Department does not have adequate controls in place in order to provide a complete and accurate report of sanction requests referred to TANF by DSER. This report should not only be available for audit testing purposes, but also as documentation to monitor and attest to the Department’s compliance with TANF program sanction requirements. OSA acknowledges that multiple information sources and reports were provided in response to audit requests; however, the suggestion that OSA can perform testing “with the DSER-provided report of referrals” is not valid, as it is a CSEME system report that shows what should have been referred, and not actual referrals. Furthermore, the suggestion that OSA can perform testing “with [the DSER-provided report] in conjunction with the additional material” would result in OSA violating auditor independence as defined in Government Auditing Standards, as auditors cannot create the population subject to testing. Evidenced by the inability to provide a complete and accurate report, the Department is not properly tracking referrals to ensure that they are not “lost, ignored, or misapplied,” and therefore, is not properly overseeing compliance with 45 CFR 264.30. As a result, OSA cannot test that the Department is in compliance with the requirement to sanction individuals not cooperating with child support enforcement. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1111-01)

(2024-055) Title: Internal control over TANF program subrecipient cash management needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Division of Contract Management Office for Family Independence Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Assistance Listing Number: 93.558 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Cash management Subrecipient monitoring Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.305; 2 CFR 200.332 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department is required to monitor cash drawdowns by their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the payment of Federal funds to the subrecipient and the subrecipient’s actual disbursement for program purposes is minimized. The Department must monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that subawards are used for authorized purposes and in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward. Condition: The Department’s Division of Contract Management (DCM) has three methods for providing payments to subrecipients: cost-settled, cost-settled by invoice, and fee-for-service subawards. • For cost-settled subawards, DCM procedures include making equal advance monthly payments and then reconciling those amounts to the quarterly financial reports submitted by the subrecipient. This procedure does not take into consideration the time elapsing between the payment of Federal funds to the subrecipient and the subrecipient’s actual disbursement for program purposes. • For “cost-settled by invoice” (reimbursement) subawards, DCM procedures do not require subrecipients to include supporting documentation with monthly requests for reimbursement nor do they request supporting documentation at a subsequent date. This procedure does not take into consideration the time elapsing between the payment of Federal funds to the subrecipient and the subrecipient’s actual disbursement for program purposes. • Cash management requirements are not applicable for fee-for-service subawards. The Office for Family Independence (OFI) is responsible for ensuring the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program’s subrecipients comply with Federal requirements; however, OFI’s subrecipient monitoring procedures do not include review of subrecipient compliance with cash management requirements. The TANF program’s subawards are cost-settled, cost-settled by invoice, or fee-for-service. Therefore, DCM and OFI procedures do not support that subrecipient cash management is properly monitored as required by Federal regulations. Additionally, OFI’s monitoring procedures do not include review of subrecipient invoices to ensure TANF grant funds are used for allowable purposes. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the Department provided $34.2 million to subrecipients from TANF grant funds totaling $92.4 million. Cause: • Lack of adequate subrecipient monitoring procedures • Lack of centralized oversight of subrecipient monitoring Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Federal programs may not be effectively and efficiently administered. • The Federal government may require the implementation of more stringent subrecipient cash management procedures. Recommendation: We recommend that OFI: • collaborate with DCM to implement monitoring procedures over subrecipient cash management requirements to ensure that the time elapsing between the payment of Federal funds to the subrecipient and the subrecipient’s actual disbursement for program purposes is minimized for the TANF program. • implement monitoring procedures over TANF program subrecipients to ensure that grant funds are used for allowable purposes. Corrective Action Plan: See F-23 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The Department is in compliance with the requirement for minimizing the time between payments to our subrecipients and the disbursement of the funds. Payments are made as close as administratively feasible. The Compliance Supplement suggested audit procedures for Cash Management for pass-through entities refers to 200.305(b)(1)...that same paragraph states that the timing and amount of advance payments must be as close as is administratively feasible. Contact: Anthony Madden, Deputy Director, Division of Audit, DHHS, 207-287-2834 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department’s interpretation of the applicable Federal regulation selectively emphasizes a single sentence from the broader paragraph, omitting critical context that informs the regulation’s full intent. According to the 2024 Compliance Supplement, pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of Federal funds to the subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized as required by the applicable cash management requirements in the Federal award to the recipient (2 CFR section 200.305(b)(1)). 2 CFR section 200.305(b)(1) states that the recipient or subrecipient must be paid in advance, provided it maintains or demonstrates the willingness to maintain both written procedures that minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds and disbursement by the recipient or subrecipient, and financial management systems that meet the standards for fund control and accountability as established in this part. Advance payments to a recipient or subrecipient must be limited to the minimum amounts needed and be timed with actual, immediate cash requirements of the recipient or subrecipient in carrying out the purpose of the approved program or project. The timing and amount of advance payments must be as close as is administratively feasible to the actual disbursements by the recipient or subrecipient for direct program or project costs and the proportionate share of any allowable indirect costs. The recipient or subrecipient must make timely payments to contractors in accordance with the contract provisions. The Department references the phrase “as close as is administratively feasible” to justify their current process; however, this phrase is part of a broader requirement that establishes specific conditions for advance payments. The regulation requires that the timing between when the subrecipient receives Federal funds from the State and when the subrecipient disburses those funds is closely monitored to ensure that disbursements align with actual, immediate cash needs. A full reading of the provision indicates that “administratively feasible” does not negate the obligation to implement effective controls that minimize this gap, nor does it permit delays or inadequate oversight in Federal cash management. The Department could not provide evidence to demonstrate that they adequately monitored subrecipient cash drawdowns to ensure alignment with actual, immediate cash needs. Additionally, the Department does not require subrecipients to submit invoice documentation to substantiate the timing, amount, or nature of expenditures included in the request of Federal funds. As a result, the Department cannot demonstrate an adequate level of monitoring, as there is no evidence that they collect the necessary information to ensure compliance with Federal cash management requirements. Furthermore, the Department did not comment on the lack of monitoring procedures over subrecipient invoices to ensure Federal grant funds are used for allowable purposes. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1111-04)

(2024-056) Title: Internal control over TANF subrecipient risk evaluation procedures needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Division of Contract Management Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Assistance Listing Number: 93.558 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Subrecipient monitoring Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.332 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department is required to evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in 2 CFR 200.332. Condition: The Department determines subrecipient monitoring procedures based on the justification for the selection of the subrecipient and the services provided. If a subaward is competitively bid, the Department’s Division of Contract Management’s (DCM) Competitive Procurement Unit seeks input from the Department of Health and Human Services’ Service Center, the Department’s Division of Audit, and DCM’s Contracts Unit regarding known issues with the provider who submitted the bid. Those responses are collected and provided to the evaluation team, which consists of various program personnel. However, for both competitively bid and non-competitively bid subawards, the level of subrecipient monitoring that the Department performs is based on the services provided and not based on the specific subrecipient. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) selected six TANF subrecipients, which included 11 subawards that were competitively bid and eight subawards that were not competitively bid and found that for: • seven competitively bid subawards, DCM provided evidence to support that feedback was solicited from other Bureaus for any known issues or prior noncompliance; however, evidence could not be provided to support the level of subrecipient monitoring that was performed based on a risk evaluation. • four competitively bid subawards, DCM could not provide evidence to support that feedback was solicited from other Bureaus for any known issues or prior noncompliance. In addition, evidence could not be provided to support the level of subrecipient monitoring that was performed based on a risk evaluation. • eight non-competitively bid subawards, evidence could not be provided to support the level of subrecipient monitoring that was performed based on a risk evaluation. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: The Department provided $34.2 million from a total of $92.4 million to TANF subrecipients during fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Subrecipients that are deemed higher risk may not be monitored on a more frequent basis. Conversely, subrecipients that are deemed lower risk may not be monitored on a less frequent basis, which would free resources and time to dedicate towards other higher risk subrecipients. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement policies and procedures that require evaluation of each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance specifically for the purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring to be performed. This will ensure subrecipients are monitored appropriately based on risk designation. Corrective Action Plan: See F-24 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The Department evaluates risk on its subrecipients for the purpose of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring in multiple ways. The first assessment of risk is when a subaward is competitively bid. The second assessment of risk is built into the Maine Uniform Accounting and Auditing Practices for Community Agencies (MAAP) in which higher risk subrecipients undergo a higher level of testing by Independent Public Accountants. Finally, the Social Service Unit of the Division of Audit performs a risk assessment and tests transactions for those subrecipients that have been determined to be higher risk. Contact: Jim Lopatosky, Director, Division of Contract Management, DHHS, 207-287-5075 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: 2 CFR 200.332(b) states that the Department must evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring. The Department has indicated in Management’s Response that the criteria set forth in 2 CFR 200.332(b) have been met; however, the following rebuttals illustrate that the Department’s assessments are inconsistent with Federal regulation requirements: • The Department identifies the first assessment of risk: when a subaward is competitively bid. o While OSA acknowledges this does occur, not all subawards are competitively bid. As stated in the Condition, for both competitively bid and non-competitively bid subawards, the level of subrecipient monitoring that the Department performs is based on the services provided, rather than on an evaluation of risk assessed for specific subrecipients. • The Department identifies the second assessment of risk: built into MAAP in which higher risk subrecipients undergo a higher level of testing by independent public accountants. o The Department did not provide documentation to support that the level of subrecipient monitoring performed correlates to MAAP; and o A subrecipient deemed higher risk as the result of a risk evaluation in accordance with 2 CFR 200.332 may not be deemed higher risk in accordance with MAAP standards. • The Department identifies the third assessment of risk: the Social Service Unit of the Division of Audit performs a risk assessment and tests transactions for those subrecipients that have been determined to be higher risk. o The Department did not provide documentation to demonstrate that these procedures are performed as a result of a risk evaluation. The Department’s existing policies and procedures do not require nor provide support for the evaluation of each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance specifically for the purpose of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring to be performed. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1111-07)

(2024-057) Title: Internal control over TANF performance reporting procedures needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Federal Agency: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Assistance Listing Number: 93.558 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 45 CFR 261.60 through .62; 45 CFR 265.7 and .8 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must maintain adequate documentation, perform adequate verification, and implement other control procedures for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) client work participation. Work participation activities include unsubsidized employment, job search and job readiness, job skills training directly related to employment, vocational education, and other work-related programs. The Department must report the actual hours that a work-eligible TANF client participates in these work-related activities, on the ACF-199 TANF Data Report and ACF-209 SSP-MOE Data Report on a quarterly basis. These reports are required by the Federal government. Condition: The Department must maintain adequate documentation, verification, and internal control procedures to ensure the accuracy of information reported to the Federal government and used to calculate work participation rates. The Department utilizes a vendor for case management services and development of individualized training and employment plans for Additional Support for People in Retraining and Employment (ASPIRE) clients. These services directly impact and enforce client work participation requirements. Vendor data is exchanged with the Department on a monthly basis and is utilized in conjunction with client data in the Automated Client Eligibility System (ACES) to comprise client work participation data that is reported on the ACF-199 and ACF-209 reports to the Federal government. The Department reported incorrect work participation information on the ACF-199 and ACF-209 reports. Of the 60 clients tested, 24 inaccurate work participation data elements were reported for 19 clients, including inaccurate: • countable months towards the Federal time limit of 60 months for nine cases; • work participation status for three cases; • unsubsidized employment and vocational education training hours for nine cases; • Federal time limit provision status for one case; • family affiliation status for one case; and • work eligible individual indicator for one case. The Office of the State Auditor selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the number of families reported on the ACF-199 report ranged from 10,000 to 11,000 per quarter, and the number of clients reported on the ACF-209 report ranged from 29,000 to 31,000 per quarter. Cause: • Lack of adequate procedures to ensure accurate reporting • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: Incorrect work participation data reported to the Federal government may affect the Federal requirement for TANF’s State Maintenance of Effort. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance existing procedures to ensure that the information reported on the ACF-199 and ACF-209 reports is accurate and complete prior to submission to the Federal government. Corrective Action Plan: See F-24 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with and acknowledges both the Condition Statement and Recommendation sections contained in this finding. The Department has developed and will implement a corrective action plan to address the Condition. Contact: Ian Yaffe, Director, Office for Family Independence, DHHS, 207-592-1481 (State Number: 24-1111-03)

(2024-058) Title: Internal control over TANF work verification plan procedures needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Assistance Listing Number: 93.558 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Special tests and provisions Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 45 CFR 261.60 through .65; Work Verification Plan for the State of Maine The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must maintain adequate documentation, perform adequate verification, and implement other control procedures for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) client work participation. Work participation activities include unsubsidized employment, job search and job readiness, job skills training directly related to employment, vocational education, and other work-related programs. The Work Verification Plan for the State of Maine requires Additional Support for People in Retraining and Employment (ASPIRE) supervisors to review a minimum of five random cases per regional office per month. ASPIRE Case Review Tool (ACRT) reviews are intended to validate all case data to include (but not limited to) work assessment, appropriateness of the individual work plan, work verification data consistency, documentation and work plan outcomes. Accuracy of all aspects of the individual cases is assessed as part of these reviews, including participation activity/hours documentation. Condition: The ASPIRE program helps TANF recipients move towards financial independence through case management, job training, education, support, and employment services. The Department contracts with a subrecipient service provider to perform outreach and case management services for the ASPIRE program. ASPIRE supervisors perform ACRT reviews of client case activity recorded by its subrecipient service provider to ensure that all case data including, but not limited to, work participation rate data is documented, verified, and reported in accordance with work verification plan requirements. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 ACRT reviews performed during fiscal year 2024 and found: • two reviews did not indicate the date that the review was performed; and • seven reviews did not document that follow up occurred for identified actions required by the subrecipient service provider, or dates that actions were taken and reported. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Additionally, a component of work verification plan requirements states that work participation data is required to be accurately reported on the ACF-199 TANF Data Report and ACF-209 SSP-MOE Data Report to the Federal government. OSA identified a significant deficiency as issued in finding 2024-057 for inaccurate work participation data reported on the ACF-199 and ACF-209 reports. Therefore, since work participation rate data was not documented, verified, or reported in accordance with the State’s work verification plan, the Department is not in compliance with Federal work verification plan requirements. Context: The Department must maintain adequate documentation, verification, and internal control procedures to ensure the accuracy of information reported to the Federal government and used to calculate work participation rates. Cause: • Lack of adequate procedures to ensure that ACRT reviews are accurate and complete and work verification plan requirements are met • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: The Federal government may penalize the State by an amount not less than one percent and not more than five percent of the grant award for violation of work verification plan requirements. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance existing procedures and oversight to ensure that work verification plan requirements are met. This should include confirming that ACRT reviews are accurate and complete which will ensure the reliability of client data used to calculate work participation rates and reported to the Federal government. Corrective Action Plan: See F-24 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Department acknowledges the exceptions found as a result of the non-statistical random sample correctly identified improperly completed reviews: two reviews did not indicate the date that the review was performed; and seven reviews did not document that follow up occurred for identified actions required by the subrecipient service provider, or dates that actions were taken and reported. The Department has developed a Corrective Action Plan to mitigate the risk of such errors from recurring. Contact: Ian Yaffe, Director, Office for Family Independence, DHHS, 207-592-1481 (State Number: 24-1111-06)

(2024-059) Title: Internal control over CCDF financial reporting needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Health and Human Services Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Office of Child and Family Services Health and Human Services Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Matching, level of effort, earmarking Reporting Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 93.575 $3.7 million Likely Questioned Costs: ALN 93.575 $3.7 million Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 45 CFR 98.50 and .65; OMB-0970-0510 ACF-696 Report Instructions The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department shall submit financial reports to the Administration for Children & Families (ACF) quarterly for each fiscal year until funds are expended. At a minimum, a State’s quarterly report shall include the following information on expenditures under Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) grant funds: • Childcare administration; • Quality activities, including any sub-categories of quality activities as required by ACF; • Direct services for both grant or contracted slots and certificates; • Non-direct services, including establishment and maintenance of computerized childcare information systems; certificate program cost/eligibility determination; all other non-direct services; and • Such other information as specified. Pursuant to CCDF regulations at 45 CFR 98.65(g), and as part of the terms and conditions of the grant award, states and territories are required to complete and submit a quarterly financial status report (ACF-696). The direct services category consists solely of expenditures for childcare subsidies to eligible children. The costs of eligibility determination and re-determination are considered a non-direct service activity and should be reported separately. Non-direct services are the costs of providing childcare subsidies or other activities not considered administrative costs. From discretionary amounts provided for a fiscal year, the Department must spend at a minimum 70 percent for direct services after reserving the minimum amount required for quality activities and for administrative costs. Condition: The CCDF program is administered by the Office of Child and Family Services (OCFS) and provides funding to increase the availability, affordability, and quality of childcare services in the State. The program had four ongoing Federal grant award years during fiscal year 2024, for grant years 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024. For each grant award: • quarterly CCDF ACF-696 financial status reports are required, and • applicable earmarking requirements for direct childcare subsidies, quality activities, and administrative costs must be met. The Department of Health and Human Services’ Service Center (DHHS SC) prepares and submits quarterly ACF-696 reports on behalf of OCFS. DHHS SC utilizes a spreadsheet designed by OCFS to track and summarize expenditure information and related earmarking requirements, and to prepare the ACF-696 reports. DHHS SC also monitors CCDF program earmarking requirements as part of this quarterly reporting process. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) reviewed three quarterly ACF-696 reports and found that: • in all reports reviewed, the amount reported as direct expenditures included amounts that were not for childcare subsidies. Reported direct expenditures erroneously included non-direct costs related to the establishment of a new computerized childcare information system, costs of eligibility determinations, and costs associated with error rate reporting requirements. • the State did not report any non-direct expenditures during fiscal year 2024. The spreadsheet utilized by DHHS SC during the reporting process did not include detailed expenditure information in order to separately report direct and non-direct expenditures. In addition, although administrative and quality earmarking requirements were tracked on DHHS SC’s spreadsheet and during the reporting process, the direct childcare subsidy earmarking requirement was not tracked. Because expenditures were not accurately tracked and therefore reported inaccurately on the ACF-696 reports, calculations of the administrative and direct spending limits were also not accurate. As a result, the requirement that a minimum of 70 percent of expenditures be used for direct childcare subsidies, after administrative and quality earmarking requirements, was not met for the grant year 2021 and 2022 expenditures, as follows: • For grant year 2021, the Department was required to spend a minimum of $13.4 million in direct childcare expenditures, and thus a maximum of $5.8 million in all other expenditures after administrative and quality earmarking requirements; however, the Department only spent $11.9 million in direct childcare expenditures. Since grant year 2021 funds were fully expended, the direct childcare earmarking requirement was not met by $1.5 million, and all other expenditures were overspent by $1.5 million. Therefore, OSA is reporting $1.5 million in questioned costs. • For grant year 2022, the Department was required to spend a minimum of $9.7 million in direct childcare expenditures, and thus a maximum of $4.2 million in all other expenditures after administrative and quality earmarking requirements; however, the Department only spent $7.5 million. Since grant year 2022 funds were fully expended, the direct childcare earmarking requirement was not met by $2.2 million, and all other expenditures were overspent by $2.2 million. Therefore, OSA is reporting $2.2 million in questioned costs. As a result, OSA is reporting a total of $3.7 million in questioned costs, representative of the direct childcare earmarking discrepancies and resulting amount of all other costs overspent for the 2021 and 2022 grant years. Context: CCDF expenditures reported for: • grant year 2021 totaled $186.5 million, of which $19.2 million was subject to the 70 percent direct childcare spending requirement of $13.4 million. • grant year 2022 totaled $30.9 million, of which $13.9 million was subject to the 70 percent direct childcare spending requirement of $9.7 million. Cause: • Lack of adequate procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations for reporting and earmarking Recommendation: We recommend that the Departments enhance existing procedures, including corrections to expenditure tracking processes, and increase supervisory oversight to ensure that all the information reported on quarterly ACF-696 reports is accurate and complete prior to submission to the Federal government. This will also ensure that CCDF earmarking requirements are met. Corrective Action Plan: See F-24 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. The Department and the DHHS Financial Service Center agrees that it could enhance its policies and procedures. The Department disagrees with the questioned costs. The DHHS Financial Service Center will enhance policies and procedures for the CCDF grant by modifying the FSR Reviewer Checklist and add an additional layer of FSR reviewer by April 30, 2025. The DHHS Financial Service Center will collaborate with OCFS to make reporting line determinations by September 1, 2025. Contact: Sarah Gove, Director, DHHS Service Center, DAFS, 207-458-6626 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department agrees to the internal control deficiencies and to the noncompliance with Federal reporting and earmarking requirements identified in the Condition, yet does not agree to the resulting questioned costs. Furthermore, the Department does not provide a basis for this disagreement. The total of $3.7 million in questioned costs is representative of the direct childcare earmarking discrepancies and resulting amount of all other costs overspent for the 2021 and 2022 grant years. The overspending on all other costs is deemed unallowable in accordance with the terms of the grant awards, as the funds were required to be spent on direct childcare. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1114-01)

(2024-059) Title: Internal control over CCDF financial reporting needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Health and Human Services Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Office of Child and Family Services Health and Human Services Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Matching, level of effort, earmarking Reporting Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 93.575 $3.7 million Likely Questioned Costs: ALN 93.575 $3.7 million Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 45 CFR 98.50 and .65; OMB-0970-0510 ACF-696 Report Instructions The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department shall submit financial reports to the Administration for Children & Families (ACF) quarterly for each fiscal year until funds are expended. At a minimum, a State’s quarterly report shall include the following information on expenditures under Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) grant funds: • Childcare administration; • Quality activities, including any sub-categories of quality activities as required by ACF; • Direct services for both grant or contracted slots and certificates; • Non-direct services, including establishment and maintenance of computerized childcare information systems; certificate program cost/eligibility determination; all other non-direct services; and • Such other information as specified. Pursuant to CCDF regulations at 45 CFR 98.65(g), and as part of the terms and conditions of the grant award, states and territories are required to complete and submit a quarterly financial status report (ACF-696). The direct services category consists solely of expenditures for childcare subsidies to eligible children. The costs of eligibility determination and re-determination are considered a non-direct service activity and should be reported separately. Non-direct services are the costs of providing childcare subsidies or other activities not considered administrative costs. From discretionary amounts provided for a fiscal year, the Department must spend at a minimum 70 percent for direct services after reserving the minimum amount required for quality activities and for administrative costs. Condition: The CCDF program is administered by the Office of Child and Family Services (OCFS) and provides funding to increase the availability, affordability, and quality of childcare services in the State. The program had four ongoing Federal grant award years during fiscal year 2024, for grant years 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024. For each grant award: • quarterly CCDF ACF-696 financial status reports are required, and • applicable earmarking requirements for direct childcare subsidies, quality activities, and administrative costs must be met. The Department of Health and Human Services’ Service Center (DHHS SC) prepares and submits quarterly ACF-696 reports on behalf of OCFS. DHHS SC utilizes a spreadsheet designed by OCFS to track and summarize expenditure information and related earmarking requirements, and to prepare the ACF-696 reports. DHHS SC also monitors CCDF program earmarking requirements as part of this quarterly reporting process. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) reviewed three quarterly ACF-696 reports and found that: • in all reports reviewed, the amount reported as direct expenditures included amounts that were not for childcare subsidies. Reported direct expenditures erroneously included non-direct costs related to the establishment of a new computerized childcare information system, costs of eligibility determinations, and costs associated with error rate reporting requirements. • the State did not report any non-direct expenditures during fiscal year 2024. The spreadsheet utilized by DHHS SC during the reporting process did not include detailed expenditure information in order to separately report direct and non-direct expenditures. In addition, although administrative and quality earmarking requirements were tracked on DHHS SC’s spreadsheet and during the reporting process, the direct childcare subsidy earmarking requirement was not tracked. Because expenditures were not accurately tracked and therefore reported inaccurately on the ACF-696 reports, calculations of the administrative and direct spending limits were also not accurate. As a result, the requirement that a minimum of 70 percent of expenditures be used for direct childcare subsidies, after administrative and quality earmarking requirements, was not met for the grant year 2021 and 2022 expenditures, as follows: • For grant year 2021, the Department was required to spend a minimum of $13.4 million in direct childcare expenditures, and thus a maximum of $5.8 million in all other expenditures after administrative and quality earmarking requirements; however, the Department only spent $11.9 million in direct childcare expenditures. Since grant year 2021 funds were fully expended, the direct childcare earmarking requirement was not met by $1.5 million, and all other expenditures were overspent by $1.5 million. Therefore, OSA is reporting $1.5 million in questioned costs. • For grant year 2022, the Department was required to spend a minimum of $9.7 million in direct childcare expenditures, and thus a maximum of $4.2 million in all other expenditures after administrative and quality earmarking requirements; however, the Department only spent $7.5 million. Since grant year 2022 funds were fully expended, the direct childcare earmarking requirement was not met by $2.2 million, and all other expenditures were overspent by $2.2 million. Therefore, OSA is reporting $2.2 million in questioned costs. As a result, OSA is reporting a total of $3.7 million in questioned costs, representative of the direct childcare earmarking discrepancies and resulting amount of all other costs overspent for the 2021 and 2022 grant years. Context: CCDF expenditures reported for: • grant year 2021 totaled $186.5 million, of which $19.2 million was subject to the 70 percent direct childcare spending requirement of $13.4 million. • grant year 2022 totaled $30.9 million, of which $13.9 million was subject to the 70 percent direct childcare spending requirement of $9.7 million. Cause: • Lack of adequate procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations for reporting and earmarking Recommendation: We recommend that the Departments enhance existing procedures, including corrections to expenditure tracking processes, and increase supervisory oversight to ensure that all the information reported on quarterly ACF-696 reports is accurate and complete prior to submission to the Federal government. This will also ensure that CCDF earmarking requirements are met. Corrective Action Plan: See F-24 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. The Department and the DHHS Financial Service Center agrees that it could enhance its policies and procedures. The Department disagrees with the questioned costs. The DHHS Financial Service Center will enhance policies and procedures for the CCDF grant by modifying the FSR Reviewer Checklist and add an additional layer of FSR reviewer by April 30, 2025. The DHHS Financial Service Center will collaborate with OCFS to make reporting line determinations by September 1, 2025. Contact: Sarah Gove, Director, DHHS Service Center, DAFS, 207-458-6626 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department agrees to the internal control deficiencies and to the noncompliance with Federal reporting and earmarking requirements identified in the Condition, yet does not agree to the resulting questioned costs. Furthermore, the Department does not provide a basis for this disagreement. The total of $3.7 million in questioned costs is representative of the direct childcare earmarking discrepancies and resulting amount of all other costs overspent for the 2021 and 2022 grant years. The overspending on all other costs is deemed unallowable in accordance with the terms of the grant awards, as the funds were required to be spent on direct childcare. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1114-01)

(2024-059) Title: Internal control over CCDF financial reporting needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Health and Human Services Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Office of Child and Family Services Health and Human Services Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Matching, level of effort, earmarking Reporting Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 93.575 $3.7 million Likely Questioned Costs: ALN 93.575 $3.7 million Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 45 CFR 98.50 and .65; OMB-0970-0510 ACF-696 Report Instructions The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department shall submit financial reports to the Administration for Children & Families (ACF) quarterly for each fiscal year until funds are expended. At a minimum, a State’s quarterly report shall include the following information on expenditures under Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) grant funds: • Childcare administration; • Quality activities, including any sub-categories of quality activities as required by ACF; • Direct services for both grant or contracted slots and certificates; • Non-direct services, including establishment and maintenance of computerized childcare information systems; certificate program cost/eligibility determination; all other non-direct services; and • Such other information as specified. Pursuant to CCDF regulations at 45 CFR 98.65(g), and as part of the terms and conditions of the grant award, states and territories are required to complete and submit a quarterly financial status report (ACF-696). The direct services category consists solely of expenditures for childcare subsidies to eligible children. The costs of eligibility determination and re-determination are considered a non-direct service activity and should be reported separately. Non-direct services are the costs of providing childcare subsidies or other activities not considered administrative costs. From discretionary amounts provided for a fiscal year, the Department must spend at a minimum 70 percent for direct services after reserving the minimum amount required for quality activities and for administrative costs. Condition: The CCDF program is administered by the Office of Child and Family Services (OCFS) and provides funding to increase the availability, affordability, and quality of childcare services in the State. The program had four ongoing Federal grant award years during fiscal year 2024, for grant years 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024. For each grant award: • quarterly CCDF ACF-696 financial status reports are required, and • applicable earmarking requirements for direct childcare subsidies, quality activities, and administrative costs must be met. The Department of Health and Human Services’ Service Center (DHHS SC) prepares and submits quarterly ACF-696 reports on behalf of OCFS. DHHS SC utilizes a spreadsheet designed by OCFS to track and summarize expenditure information and related earmarking requirements, and to prepare the ACF-696 reports. DHHS SC also monitors CCDF program earmarking requirements as part of this quarterly reporting process. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) reviewed three quarterly ACF-696 reports and found that: • in all reports reviewed, the amount reported as direct expenditures included amounts that were not for childcare subsidies. Reported direct expenditures erroneously included non-direct costs related to the establishment of a new computerized childcare information system, costs of eligibility determinations, and costs associated with error rate reporting requirements. • the State did not report any non-direct expenditures during fiscal year 2024. The spreadsheet utilized by DHHS SC during the reporting process did not include detailed expenditure information in order to separately report direct and non-direct expenditures. In addition, although administrative and quality earmarking requirements were tracked on DHHS SC’s spreadsheet and during the reporting process, the direct childcare subsidy earmarking requirement was not tracked. Because expenditures were not accurately tracked and therefore reported inaccurately on the ACF-696 reports, calculations of the administrative and direct spending limits were also not accurate. As a result, the requirement that a minimum of 70 percent of expenditures be used for direct childcare subsidies, after administrative and quality earmarking requirements, was not met for the grant year 2021 and 2022 expenditures, as follows: • For grant year 2021, the Department was required to spend a minimum of $13.4 million in direct childcare expenditures, and thus a maximum of $5.8 million in all other expenditures after administrative and quality earmarking requirements; however, the Department only spent $11.9 million in direct childcare expenditures. Since grant year 2021 funds were fully expended, the direct childcare earmarking requirement was not met by $1.5 million, and all other expenditures were overspent by $1.5 million. Therefore, OSA is reporting $1.5 million in questioned costs. • For grant year 2022, the Department was required to spend a minimum of $9.7 million in direct childcare expenditures, and thus a maximum of $4.2 million in all other expenditures after administrative and quality earmarking requirements; however, the Department only spent $7.5 million. Since grant year 2022 funds were fully expended, the direct childcare earmarking requirement was not met by $2.2 million, and all other expenditures were overspent by $2.2 million. Therefore, OSA is reporting $2.2 million in questioned costs. As a result, OSA is reporting a total of $3.7 million in questioned costs, representative of the direct childcare earmarking discrepancies and resulting amount of all other costs overspent for the 2021 and 2022 grant years. Context: CCDF expenditures reported for: • grant year 2021 totaled $186.5 million, of which $19.2 million was subject to the 70 percent direct childcare spending requirement of $13.4 million. • grant year 2022 totaled $30.9 million, of which $13.9 million was subject to the 70 percent direct childcare spending requirement of $9.7 million. Cause: • Lack of adequate procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations for reporting and earmarking Recommendation: We recommend that the Departments enhance existing procedures, including corrections to expenditure tracking processes, and increase supervisory oversight to ensure that all the information reported on quarterly ACF-696 reports is accurate and complete prior to submission to the Federal government. This will also ensure that CCDF earmarking requirements are met. Corrective Action Plan: See F-24 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. The Department and the DHHS Financial Service Center agrees that it could enhance its policies and procedures. The Department disagrees with the questioned costs. The DHHS Financial Service Center will enhance policies and procedures for the CCDF grant by modifying the FSR Reviewer Checklist and add an additional layer of FSR reviewer by April 30, 2025. The DHHS Financial Service Center will collaborate with OCFS to make reporting line determinations by September 1, 2025. Contact: Sarah Gove, Director, DHHS Service Center, DAFS, 207-458-6626 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department agrees to the internal control deficiencies and to the noncompliance with Federal reporting and earmarking requirements identified in the Condition, yet does not agree to the resulting questioned costs. Furthermore, the Department does not provide a basis for this disagreement. The total of $3.7 million in questioned costs is representative of the direct childcare earmarking discrepancies and resulting amount of all other costs overspent for the 2021 and 2022 grant years. The overspending on all other costs is deemed unallowable in accordance with the terms of the grant awards, as the funds were required to be spent on direct childcare. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1114-01)

(2024-060) Title: Internal control over CCDF provider health and safety requirements needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office of Child and Family Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Special test and provisions Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 45 CFR 98.33, .41, .42, and .68 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department is required to disseminate to the general public, through a consumer-friendly and easily accessible website, results of monitoring and inspection reports for all eligible and licensed childcare providers. Full monitoring and inspection reports must be posted timely. The Department is required to design, implement, and enforce health and safety requirements for the protection of children. Unannounced inspections of childcare providers and facilities, performed by licensing inspectors, are required not less than annually to ensure compliance with all childcare licensing and health and safety standards. In the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) State Plan, the Department is required to describe effective internal controls that are in place to ensure program integrity and accountability while maintaining continuity of services. Condition: The CCDF program is administered by the Office of Child and Family Services (OCFS) and provides funding to increase the availability, affordability, and quality of childcare services in the State. OCFS completes annual childcare provider site visits or licensing inspections for providers receiving subsidies from the CCDF program. During site visits and licensing inspections, OCFS personnel review Federal program health and safety requirements using a provider compliance checklist. Any deficiencies are noted, corrective action by the provider is required, and the frequency of site visits or licensing inspections is increased until remediation of noted deficiencies is complete. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 40 providers subject to health and safety site visits or licensing inspections and identified: • two provider facilities’ annual unannounced site visits did not occur within 12 months as required, and were one month and two months late. • two provider facility inspections were noted in the provider file as complete; however, documentation of completed inspection reports was not maintained in the provider file or posted publicly. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: The Department provided approximately $29 million to CCDF program childcare providers in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Providers not meeting CCDF program regulations for health and safety may go undetected. Recommendation: We recommend that OCFS enhance oversight to ensure that required annual childcare provider site visits and licensing inspections, and any resulting corrective action, are documented, monitored, and completed. Corrective Action Plan: See F-25 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Department acknowledges that two facilities annual unannounced inspections did not occur within 12 months. This was related to an unplanned staff resignation and an emergency staff leave of absence. The CLIS management team diligently and conscientiously tracks workloads, engages in regular supervision, team meetings, and has developed tracking systems outside of the antiquated data management system (Macwis) to ensure expectations are met. The Department also agrees with the finding that two facility inspections were not filed properly and were therefore not posted publicly. One staff person was covering two large geographic areas as she transitioned territory and OCFS hired/ trained a new employee. The current process of using paper inspection sheets that are sent to central office for review, scanning, and upload to the consumer education website is cumbersome and presents an opportunity for error. Contact: Janet Whitten, Manager - Children’s Licensing & Investigation, OCFS, DHHS, 207-441-2259 (State Number: 24-1114-02)

(2024-060) Title: Internal control over CCDF provider health and safety requirements needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office of Child and Family Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Special test and provisions Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 45 CFR 98.33, .41, .42, and .68 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department is required to disseminate to the general public, through a consumer-friendly and easily accessible website, results of monitoring and inspection reports for all eligible and licensed childcare providers. Full monitoring and inspection reports must be posted timely. The Department is required to design, implement, and enforce health and safety requirements for the protection of children. Unannounced inspections of childcare providers and facilities, performed by licensing inspectors, are required not less than annually to ensure compliance with all childcare licensing and health and safety standards. In the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) State Plan, the Department is required to describe effective internal controls that are in place to ensure program integrity and accountability while maintaining continuity of services. Condition: The CCDF program is administered by the Office of Child and Family Services (OCFS) and provides funding to increase the availability, affordability, and quality of childcare services in the State. OCFS completes annual childcare provider site visits or licensing inspections for providers receiving subsidies from the CCDF program. During site visits and licensing inspections, OCFS personnel review Federal program health and safety requirements using a provider compliance checklist. Any deficiencies are noted, corrective action by the provider is required, and the frequency of site visits or licensing inspections is increased until remediation of noted deficiencies is complete. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 40 providers subject to health and safety site visits or licensing inspections and identified: • two provider facilities’ annual unannounced site visits did not occur within 12 months as required, and were one month and two months late. • two provider facility inspections were noted in the provider file as complete; however, documentation of completed inspection reports was not maintained in the provider file or posted publicly. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: The Department provided approximately $29 million to CCDF program childcare providers in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Providers not meeting CCDF program regulations for health and safety may go undetected. Recommendation: We recommend that OCFS enhance oversight to ensure that required annual childcare provider site visits and licensing inspections, and any resulting corrective action, are documented, monitored, and completed. Corrective Action Plan: See F-25 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Department acknowledges that two facilities annual unannounced inspections did not occur within 12 months. This was related to an unplanned staff resignation and an emergency staff leave of absence. The CLIS management team diligently and conscientiously tracks workloads, engages in regular supervision, team meetings, and has developed tracking systems outside of the antiquated data management system (Macwis) to ensure expectations are met. The Department also agrees with the finding that two facility inspections were not filed properly and were therefore not posted publicly. One staff person was covering two large geographic areas as she transitioned territory and OCFS hired/ trained a new employee. The current process of using paper inspection sheets that are sent to central office for review, scanning, and upload to the consumer education website is cumbersome and presents an opportunity for error. Contact: Janet Whitten, Manager - Children’s Licensing & Investigation, OCFS, DHHS, 207-441-2259 (State Number: 24-1114-02)

(2024-060) Title: Internal control over CCDF provider health and safety requirements needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office of Child and Family Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Special test and provisions Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 45 CFR 98.33, .41, .42, and .68 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department is required to disseminate to the general public, through a consumer-friendly and easily accessible website, results of monitoring and inspection reports for all eligible and licensed childcare providers. Full monitoring and inspection reports must be posted timely. The Department is required to design, implement, and enforce health and safety requirements for the protection of children. Unannounced inspections of childcare providers and facilities, performed by licensing inspectors, are required not less than annually to ensure compliance with all childcare licensing and health and safety standards. In the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) State Plan, the Department is required to describe effective internal controls that are in place to ensure program integrity and accountability while maintaining continuity of services. Condition: The CCDF program is administered by the Office of Child and Family Services (OCFS) and provides funding to increase the availability, affordability, and quality of childcare services in the State. OCFS completes annual childcare provider site visits or licensing inspections for providers receiving subsidies from the CCDF program. During site visits and licensing inspections, OCFS personnel review Federal program health and safety requirements using a provider compliance checklist. Any deficiencies are noted, corrective action by the provider is required, and the frequency of site visits or licensing inspections is increased until remediation of noted deficiencies is complete. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 40 providers subject to health and safety site visits or licensing inspections and identified: • two provider facilities’ annual unannounced site visits did not occur within 12 months as required, and were one month and two months late. • two provider facility inspections were noted in the provider file as complete; however, documentation of completed inspection reports was not maintained in the provider file or posted publicly. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: The Department provided approximately $29 million to CCDF program childcare providers in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Providers not meeting CCDF program regulations for health and safety may go undetected. Recommendation: We recommend that OCFS enhance oversight to ensure that required annual childcare provider site visits and licensing inspections, and any resulting corrective action, are documented, monitored, and completed. Corrective Action Plan: See F-25 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Department acknowledges that two facilities annual unannounced inspections did not occur within 12 months. This was related to an unplanned staff resignation and an emergency staff leave of absence. The CLIS management team diligently and conscientiously tracks workloads, engages in regular supervision, team meetings, and has developed tracking systems outside of the antiquated data management system (Macwis) to ensure expectations are met. The Department also agrees with the finding that two facility inspections were not filed properly and were therefore not posted publicly. One staff person was covering two large geographic areas as she transitioned territory and OCFS hired/ trained a new employee. The current process of using paper inspection sheets that are sent to central office for review, scanning, and upload to the consumer education website is cumbersome and presents an opportunity for error. Contact: Janet Whitten, Manager - Children’s Licensing & Investigation, OCFS, DHHS, 207-441-2259 (State Number: 24-1114-02)

(2024-061) Title: Internal control over CCDF period of performance needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Health and Human Services Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Office of Child and Family Services Health and Human Services Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Period of performance Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 45 CFR 98.60; American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act, Section 2201(a) The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Discretionary liquidation period regulations require the Department to liquidate grant funds within one year of the required obligation date. Section 2201(a) of the ARP Act requires CCDF Discretionary supplemental funds to be obligated in Federal fiscal year 2021 or the succeeding two fiscal years. The Department must obligate supplemental funds by September 30, 2023. Condition: The CCDF program is administered by the Office of Child and Family Services (OCFS) and provides funding to increase the availability, affordability, and quality of childcare services in the State. OCFS utilizes the Department of Health and Human Services’ (DHHS) Service Center to collaboratively process CCDF expenditures, which includes dual review and approval of program grant coding and periods of performance. The Departments are required to ensure expenditures are obligated and liquidated within the required timeframes for each grant. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) identified 11 significant CCDF expenditure transactions for grants that had obligation and liquidation periods ending during fiscal year 2024. OSA found four payroll transactions charged to CCDF ARP Discretionary supplemental funds totaling $5,321, for payroll costs incurred, and thus obligated, subsequent to the required obligation date; therefore, the costs are deemed unallowable. OSA tested 37 CCDF expenditure adjustments in fiscal year 2024 and found two adjustments totaling $2,952, charged to CCDF ARP Discretionary supplemental funds during the liquidation period that represented expenditures incurred subsequent to the required obligation date; therefore, the costs are deemed unallowable. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. OSA performed analytical procedures over all fiscal year 2024 expenditure adjustments and found 14 additional adjustments totaling $4,492, all allocated to CCDF ARP Discretionary supplemental funds, for expenditures that were incurred subsequent to the required obligation date; therefore, the costs are deemed unallowable. OCFS’ and DHHS Service Center’s existing review and approval procedures are not adequate, as unallowable costs totaling $12,765 for expenditures outside of the required period of performance were charged to CCDF ARP Discretionary supplemental funds. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the Department expended approximately $52 million in CCDF program funds. Approximately $6 million of total CCDF program expenditures were CCDF ARP Discretionary supplemental funds with a required obligation date of September 30, 2023. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Potential questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Departments enhance policies and procedures and increase supervisory oversight to ensure that obligations of grant funds are made within period of performance requirements established in the terms and conditions of Federal grant awards. Corrective Action Plan: See F-25 Management’s Response: The Department and the DHHS Financial Service Center agree with this finding. The DHHS Financial Service Center will enhance policies and procedures for the CCDF grant by modifying the FSR Reviewer Checklist by April 30, 2025. Contact: Sarah Gove, Director, DHHS Service Center, DAFS, 207-458-6626 (State Number: 24-1114-03)

(2024-061) Title: Internal control over CCDF period of performance needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Health and Human Services Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Office of Child and Family Services Health and Human Services Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Period of performance Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 45 CFR 98.60; American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act, Section 2201(a) The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Discretionary liquidation period regulations require the Department to liquidate grant funds within one year of the required obligation date. Section 2201(a) of the ARP Act requires CCDF Discretionary supplemental funds to be obligated in Federal fiscal year 2021 or the succeeding two fiscal years. The Department must obligate supplemental funds by September 30, 2023. Condition: The CCDF program is administered by the Office of Child and Family Services (OCFS) and provides funding to increase the availability, affordability, and quality of childcare services in the State. OCFS utilizes the Department of Health and Human Services’ (DHHS) Service Center to collaboratively process CCDF expenditures, which includes dual review and approval of program grant coding and periods of performance. The Departments are required to ensure expenditures are obligated and liquidated within the required timeframes for each grant. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) identified 11 significant CCDF expenditure transactions for grants that had obligation and liquidation periods ending during fiscal year 2024. OSA found four payroll transactions charged to CCDF ARP Discretionary supplemental funds totaling $5,321, for payroll costs incurred, and thus obligated, subsequent to the required obligation date; therefore, the costs are deemed unallowable. OSA tested 37 CCDF expenditure adjustments in fiscal year 2024 and found two adjustments totaling $2,952, charged to CCDF ARP Discretionary supplemental funds during the liquidation period that represented expenditures incurred subsequent to the required obligation date; therefore, the costs are deemed unallowable. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. OSA performed analytical procedures over all fiscal year 2024 expenditure adjustments and found 14 additional adjustments totaling $4,492, all allocated to CCDF ARP Discretionary supplemental funds, for expenditures that were incurred subsequent to the required obligation date; therefore, the costs are deemed unallowable. OCFS’ and DHHS Service Center’s existing review and approval procedures are not adequate, as unallowable costs totaling $12,765 for expenditures outside of the required period of performance were charged to CCDF ARP Discretionary supplemental funds. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the Department expended approximately $52 million in CCDF program funds. Approximately $6 million of total CCDF program expenditures were CCDF ARP Discretionary supplemental funds with a required obligation date of September 30, 2023. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Potential questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Departments enhance policies and procedures and increase supervisory oversight to ensure that obligations of grant funds are made within period of performance requirements established in the terms and conditions of Federal grant awards. Corrective Action Plan: See F-25 Management’s Response: The Department and the DHHS Financial Service Center agree with this finding. The DHHS Financial Service Center will enhance policies and procedures for the CCDF grant by modifying the FSR Reviewer Checklist by April 30, 2025. Contact: Sarah Gove, Director, DHHS Service Center, DAFS, 207-458-6626 (State Number: 24-1114-03)

(2024-062) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-25 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0906-02)

(2024-062) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-25 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0906-02)

(2024-062) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-25 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0906-02)

(2024-063) Title: Internal control over the Foster Care – Title IV-E and Adoption Assistance – Title IV-E eligibility and benefit determination process needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office of Child and Family Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Foster Care – Title IV-E (COVID-19) Adoption Assistance – Title IV-E (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.658; 93.659 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Eligibility Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 93.658 $4,647 ALN 93.659 $9,367 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) selected a sample of clients who received Title IV-E benefits during the fiscal year and identified known questioned costs associated with seven clients based on various eligibility attributes. Since each exception is unique to the client, a projection of questioned costs cannot be reasonably estimated. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 45 CFR 1356.21 and .40; 42 USC 671 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. 45 CFR 1356.21 outlines eligibility criteria which, if met, allows the State to pay foster care maintenance payments on behalf of eligible children, in accordance with the Title IV-E agency’s foster care maintenance payment rate schedule, to individuals serving as foster family homes, to childcare institutions, or to public or private child-placement or childcare agencies. 45 CFR 1356.40 outlines eligibility criteria which, if met, allows the State to pay a portion of the Federal Adoption Assistance maintenance payments and claim Federal financial participation for the payment. 42 USC 671 requires that prospective foster parents and any other adult living in the home who has resided in the provider home in the preceding five years satisfactorily meet a child abuse and neglect registry check. The requirement applies to foster care maintenance payments made on behalf of the foster child. Condition: The Office of Child and Family Services (OCFS) administers the Foster Care – Title IV-E (Foster Care) and Adoption Assistance – Title IV-E (Adoption Assistance) programs for the State, outlined below: • The Foster Care program is designed to help states provide safe and stable out-of-home care for children under its jurisdiction until the children are returned home safely, placed with adoptive families, or placed in other planned arrangements for permanency. • The Adoption Assistance program provides Federal funds to states to facilitate the timely placement of children, whose special needs or circumstances would otherwise make them difficult to place, with adoptive families. Funds are available for a one-time payment to assist with the costs of adopting a child as well as for subsidies to adoptive families to assist with the care of the eligible child on an ongoing basis. A financial resources specialist (FRS) determines program eligibility and initiates benefits through completion of a determination checklist. The FRS reviews program eligibility factors, gathers required supporting documentation, and documents the certification decision on the checklist. The FRS enters the information into the child welfare information system for processing. Once the client is determined eligible in the child welfare information system, a level of benefits is assigned. OCFS relies on this information and the related system coding to ensure that benefits are accurately provided to eligible clients. OSA tested 60 client eligibility determinations and found: • three determination checklists did not include a certification decision; • three determination checklists were signed by a FRS who did not perform the eligibility determination; and • one determination checklist did not initially include a certification decision. The determination checklist was signed subsequent to OSA’s request for review by a FRS who did not perform the eligibility determination. Additionally, one client’s prospective foster parent did not satisfactorily meet a child abuse and neglect registry check in accordance with 42 USC 671. A second family was residing in the Resource Family Home (RFH), and child abuse and neglect registry checks were not completed or satisfactorily met for the additional adults. Additionally, the Home Study to evaluate the home and safety environment related to the RFH license for the family was completed without disclosing all individuals residing in the home. Upon further review, OSA determined two additional clients were in custody of the RFH and receiving Foster Care or Adoption Assistance benefits during fiscal year 2024. The RFH received $10,701 in benefits from both Federal programs on behalf of three clients, resulting in questioned costs of the entire amount. OSA tested 60 clients and 60 benefit payments and found: • one client received Foster Care childcare benefits after the date the client was adopted, resulting in questioned costs of $1,338. • one client received Foster Care benefit payments while in an unlicensed placement for one month, resulting in questioned costs of $783. • one client determined to be ineligible continued to receive Foster Care benefit payments during the fiscal year, resulting in questioned costs of $594. • one client changed placements during the fiscal year and two separate Foster Family Homes received benefit payments for the same time period on behalf of the client, resulting in questioned costs of $529. The Department recorded the overpayments in the child welfare information system but did not recoup the funds during the fiscal year. • one client received Foster Care benefit payments during the same time period that they received Adoption Assistance benefit payments, resulting in questioned costs of $69 to the RFH. • benefits for one client were paid with State funds and should have been paid with Federal funds for five months of the fiscal year. • one client’s eligibility record included an incorrect end date for benefits within the child welfare information system, resulting in the client being paid with State funds instead of claiming Federal funds for three months of the fiscal year. OSA selected non-statistical random samples. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the State provided approximately: • 900 Foster Care clients with $5.4 million in Federal benefits; and • 4,200 Adoption Assistance clients with $24.7 million in Federal benefits. Cause: • Lack of appropriate oversight over eligibility and benefit determinations • Lack of adequate policies and procedures and supervisory oversight of the child welfare information system. The system was implemented in fiscal year 2023 and policies and procedures were not designed to properly test system coding for all eligibility change circumstances that could occur. Effect: • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Benefits were provided to ineligible clients. • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • enhance policies and procedures to ensure that eligibility determination checklists include certification decisions by the FRS completing the determination; • implement additional procedures to ensure that payments made on behalf of clients are accurate and allowable in accordance with program regulations; • establish recoupments for the overpayments identified; and • strengthen licensing practices for background screening of potential and current RFHs. Corrective Action Plan: See F-26 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. OCFS agrees with the finding in that the checklist was not appropriately signed at the time of completion. OCFS would like to note that the checklist is not part of any state or federal policy or requirement. It is our own internal process and was only added to our FRS manual as a plan of correction (POC) because of last year’s finding re: some checklists not being signed. When an FRS worker completes an Initial determination in the system, the determination is printed out for our files and the document includes a timestamp when it was completed as well as the FRS assigned. Due to this POC just being added last year, this would be expected to be an ongoing finding for the foreseeable future since we cannot retroactively sign the completed checklists in the past. OCFS agrees there is a need to formalize the overpayment collection process. We believe that there are both programmatic and technical solutions to be explored. OCFS will develop a workgroup of subject matter experts to explore and understand the challenges of managing overpayments and develop a solution for implementation over the next year. OCFS disagrees with the finding that OCFS needs to strengthen its licensing practices for background screening of Resource Families. The finding is based on additional occupants in the home that were not subject to background checks and were not listed in the renewal home study completed in 2023. The home study referenced above described the home and all occupants as presented by the family. The Community Care Worker completed a safety inspection/walk through of the home and found no evidence of additional occupants. OCFS conducts background checks on the adults in the home in accordance with policy and rules, at initial licensure as well as renewal of licensure every two years. OCFS does not conduct unannounced licensing visits and relies on resource families to report changes in family composition and occupancy. In the event there are not any children in the custody of the state in the home, OCFS would not have reason or cause to inspect who is residing in the home or conduct face-to-face visits with resource families. Because this specific finding does not describe a failure to adhere to policy and rules, no correction action plan will be identified. Contact: Robert Blanchard, Associate Director, OCFS, DHHS, 207-624-7955 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: For the exceptions identified over the eligibility determination checklists, the use of the checklist was identified to OSA by the Department as the established control to ensure compliance over determinations of Title IV-E eligibility for all clients entering Foster Care. While there is no Federal requirement for a checklist, the Department is required to establish and maintain internal controls over Federal awards in accordance with 2 CFR 200.303. OSA performed testing over the Department’s established internal control. Regarding the need to strengthen its licensing practices for background screening of Resource Families, the child welfare information system listed the additional occupants residing in the home as early as 2020, including within several family investigations and reports of alleged abuse occurring in the home. While OSA recognizes that OCFS does not conduct unannounced licensing visits, the information surrounding resource families is obtainable through review of the child welfare information system. A cross-check of associated intakes, cases, family investigations, or reports of alleged abuse within the child welfare information system would have identified the second family residing in the home. The adults residing in the home did not satisfactorily meet a child abuse and neglect registry check in accordance with 42 USC 671, and the RFH remained licensed and continued to inappropriately receive Title IV-E benefits. Therefore, this finding does describe a failure to adhere to policy and rules, and a corrective action plan is necessary. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1109-01)

(2024-063) Title: Internal control over the Foster Care – Title IV-E and Adoption Assistance – Title IV-E eligibility and benefit determination process needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office of Child and Family Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Foster Care – Title IV-E (COVID-19) Adoption Assistance – Title IV-E (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.658; 93.659 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Eligibility Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 93.658 $4,647 ALN 93.659 $9,367 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) selected a sample of clients who received Title IV-E benefits during the fiscal year and identified known questioned costs associated with seven clients based on various eligibility attributes. Since each exception is unique to the client, a projection of questioned costs cannot be reasonably estimated. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 45 CFR 1356.21 and .40; 42 USC 671 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. 45 CFR 1356.21 outlines eligibility criteria which, if met, allows the State to pay foster care maintenance payments on behalf of eligible children, in accordance with the Title IV-E agency’s foster care maintenance payment rate schedule, to individuals serving as foster family homes, to childcare institutions, or to public or private child-placement or childcare agencies. 45 CFR 1356.40 outlines eligibility criteria which, if met, allows the State to pay a portion of the Federal Adoption Assistance maintenance payments and claim Federal financial participation for the payment. 42 USC 671 requires that prospective foster parents and any other adult living in the home who has resided in the provider home in the preceding five years satisfactorily meet a child abuse and neglect registry check. The requirement applies to foster care maintenance payments made on behalf of the foster child. Condition: The Office of Child and Family Services (OCFS) administers the Foster Care – Title IV-E (Foster Care) and Adoption Assistance – Title IV-E (Adoption Assistance) programs for the State, outlined below: • The Foster Care program is designed to help states provide safe and stable out-of-home care for children under its jurisdiction until the children are returned home safely, placed with adoptive families, or placed in other planned arrangements for permanency. • The Adoption Assistance program provides Federal funds to states to facilitate the timely placement of children, whose special needs or circumstances would otherwise make them difficult to place, with adoptive families. Funds are available for a one-time payment to assist with the costs of adopting a child as well as for subsidies to adoptive families to assist with the care of the eligible child on an ongoing basis. A financial resources specialist (FRS) determines program eligibility and initiates benefits through completion of a determination checklist. The FRS reviews program eligibility factors, gathers required supporting documentation, and documents the certification decision on the checklist. The FRS enters the information into the child welfare information system for processing. Once the client is determined eligible in the child welfare information system, a level of benefits is assigned. OCFS relies on this information and the related system coding to ensure that benefits are accurately provided to eligible clients. OSA tested 60 client eligibility determinations and found: • three determination checklists did not include a certification decision; • three determination checklists were signed by a FRS who did not perform the eligibility determination; and • one determination checklist did not initially include a certification decision. The determination checklist was signed subsequent to OSA’s request for review by a FRS who did not perform the eligibility determination. Additionally, one client’s prospective foster parent did not satisfactorily meet a child abuse and neglect registry check in accordance with 42 USC 671. A second family was residing in the Resource Family Home (RFH), and child abuse and neglect registry checks were not completed or satisfactorily met for the additional adults. Additionally, the Home Study to evaluate the home and safety environment related to the RFH license for the family was completed without disclosing all individuals residing in the home. Upon further review, OSA determined two additional clients were in custody of the RFH and receiving Foster Care or Adoption Assistance benefits during fiscal year 2024. The RFH received $10,701 in benefits from both Federal programs on behalf of three clients, resulting in questioned costs of the entire amount. OSA tested 60 clients and 60 benefit payments and found: • one client received Foster Care childcare benefits after the date the client was adopted, resulting in questioned costs of $1,338. • one client received Foster Care benefit payments while in an unlicensed placement for one month, resulting in questioned costs of $783. • one client determined to be ineligible continued to receive Foster Care benefit payments during the fiscal year, resulting in questioned costs of $594. • one client changed placements during the fiscal year and two separate Foster Family Homes received benefit payments for the same time period on behalf of the client, resulting in questioned costs of $529. The Department recorded the overpayments in the child welfare information system but did not recoup the funds during the fiscal year. • one client received Foster Care benefit payments during the same time period that they received Adoption Assistance benefit payments, resulting in questioned costs of $69 to the RFH. • benefits for one client were paid with State funds and should have been paid with Federal funds for five months of the fiscal year. • one client’s eligibility record included an incorrect end date for benefits within the child welfare information system, resulting in the client being paid with State funds instead of claiming Federal funds for three months of the fiscal year. OSA selected non-statistical random samples. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the State provided approximately: • 900 Foster Care clients with $5.4 million in Federal benefits; and • 4,200 Adoption Assistance clients with $24.7 million in Federal benefits. Cause: • Lack of appropriate oversight over eligibility and benefit determinations • Lack of adequate policies and procedures and supervisory oversight of the child welfare information system. The system was implemented in fiscal year 2023 and policies and procedures were not designed to properly test system coding for all eligibility change circumstances that could occur. Effect: • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Benefits were provided to ineligible clients. • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • enhance policies and procedures to ensure that eligibility determination checklists include certification decisions by the FRS completing the determination; • implement additional procedures to ensure that payments made on behalf of clients are accurate and allowable in accordance with program regulations; • establish recoupments for the overpayments identified; and • strengthen licensing practices for background screening of potential and current RFHs. Corrective Action Plan: See F-26 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. OCFS agrees with the finding in that the checklist was not appropriately signed at the time of completion. OCFS would like to note that the checklist is not part of any state or federal policy or requirement. It is our own internal process and was only added to our FRS manual as a plan of correction (POC) because of last year’s finding re: some checklists not being signed. When an FRS worker completes an Initial determination in the system, the determination is printed out for our files and the document includes a timestamp when it was completed as well as the FRS assigned. Due to this POC just being added last year, this would be expected to be an ongoing finding for the foreseeable future since we cannot retroactively sign the completed checklists in the past. OCFS agrees there is a need to formalize the overpayment collection process. We believe that there are both programmatic and technical solutions to be explored. OCFS will develop a workgroup of subject matter experts to explore and understand the challenges of managing overpayments and develop a solution for implementation over the next year. OCFS disagrees with the finding that OCFS needs to strengthen its licensing practices for background screening of Resource Families. The finding is based on additional occupants in the home that were not subject to background checks and were not listed in the renewal home study completed in 2023. The home study referenced above described the home and all occupants as presented by the family. The Community Care Worker completed a safety inspection/walk through of the home and found no evidence of additional occupants. OCFS conducts background checks on the adults in the home in accordance with policy and rules, at initial licensure as well as renewal of licensure every two years. OCFS does not conduct unannounced licensing visits and relies on resource families to report changes in family composition and occupancy. In the event there are not any children in the custody of the state in the home, OCFS would not have reason or cause to inspect who is residing in the home or conduct face-to-face visits with resource families. Because this specific finding does not describe a failure to adhere to policy and rules, no correction action plan will be identified. Contact: Robert Blanchard, Associate Director, OCFS, DHHS, 207-624-7955 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: For the exceptions identified over the eligibility determination checklists, the use of the checklist was identified to OSA by the Department as the established control to ensure compliance over determinations of Title IV-E eligibility for all clients entering Foster Care. While there is no Federal requirement for a checklist, the Department is required to establish and maintain internal controls over Federal awards in accordance with 2 CFR 200.303. OSA performed testing over the Department’s established internal control. Regarding the need to strengthen its licensing practices for background screening of Resource Families, the child welfare information system listed the additional occupants residing in the home as early as 2020, including within several family investigations and reports of alleged abuse occurring in the home. While OSA recognizes that OCFS does not conduct unannounced licensing visits, the information surrounding resource families is obtainable through review of the child welfare information system. A cross-check of associated intakes, cases, family investigations, or reports of alleged abuse within the child welfare information system would have identified the second family residing in the home. The adults residing in the home did not satisfactorily meet a child abuse and neglect registry check in accordance with 42 USC 671, and the RFH remained licensed and continued to inappropriately receive Title IV-E benefits. Therefore, this finding does describe a failure to adhere to policy and rules, and a corrective action plan is necessary. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1109-01)

(2024-064) Title: Internal control over the Adoption Assistance – Title IV-E eligibility and benefit determination process needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office of Child and Family Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Adoption Assistance – Title IV-E (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.659 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Eligibility Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 93.659 $10,860 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) selected a sample of clients who received Title IV-E benefits during fiscal year 2024 and identified known questioned costs for three clients based on review of Adoption Agreements signed in 2008, 2012, and 2016. Since each Adoption Agreement is unique to the client, a projection of questioned costs cannot be reasonably estimated. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 45 CFR 1356.40 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. The State is allowed to pay a portion of the Federal Adoption Assistance maintenance payments and claim Federal financial participation for Title IV-E eligible clients. Condition: The Adoption Assistance – Title IV-E (Adoption Assistance) program provides Federal funds to states to facilitate the timely placement of children, whose special needs or circumstances would otherwise make them difficult to place, with adoptive families. Funds are available for a one-time payment to assist with the costs of adopting a child as well as for subsidies to adoptive families to assist with the care of the eligible child on an ongoing basis. The Office of Child and Family Services (OCFS) administers the Adoption Assistance program for the State. OCFS financial resource specialists (FRS) are responsible for determining program eligibility and initiating benefits. The FRS uses the Adoption Assistance Checklist to ensure that program eligibility factors, required supporting information, and final determination for Federal Adoption Assistance benefits are obtained and documented. Once the client is determined eligible in the child welfare information system, a daily rate is negotiated by OCFS and the adoptive parents at a rate that does not exceed what the client would qualify for under the Foster Care – Title IV-E program. OSA tested 60 client benefit payments and identified that: • one client received Social Security Administration benefits, and therefore, was not eligible for Adoption Assistance benefits. The client received a daily Adoption Assistance rate of $16.50, resulting in questioned costs of $6,023 during fiscal year 2024. • one client received a higher daily Adoption Assistance rate than what they qualified for under the Foster Care – Title IV-E program. The client received a $26.25 daily rate instead of $16.50, resulting in questioned costs of $3,559 during fiscal year 2024. • one client received a higher daily Adoption Assistance rate than what they qualified for under the Foster Care – Title IV-E program. The client received a $20 daily rate instead of $16.50, resulting in questioned costs of $1,278 during fiscal year 2024. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the State provided approximately 4,200 Adoption Assistance clients with $24.7 million in Federal benefits. Cause: Lack of adequate policies and procedures over verification and accuracy of benefit determinations and associated Adoption Assistance payments Effect: • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Individuals not eligible for services could receive benefits. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance policies and procedures to ensure the accuracy of eligibility and benefit determinations, and verify that benefit payments are made in accordance with Federal regulations. Corrective Action Plan: See F-26 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. Completion of the Adoption Assistance Checklist has not been universally understood to be used as the internal control for documentation of certification decisions, but as a guide for staff to use in preparing and organizing the Application for Adoption Assistance Packets. We agree that this is an effective tool to ensure certification decisions regarding IVE and consistent documentation in case files. Contact: Karen Benson, Adoption Program Manager, OCFS, DHHS, 207-561-4208 (State Number: 24-1110-01)

(2024-065) Title: Internal control over the Foster Care – Title IV-E and Adoption Assistance – Title IV-E programs FMAP rates needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Health and Human Services Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Office of Child and Family Services Health and Human Services Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Foster Care – Title IV-E (COVID-19) Adoption Assistance – Title IV-E (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.658; 93.659 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Matching, level of effort, earmarking Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 45 CFR 1356.21, .40, and .60; Public Law No. 117-328, Section 5131 of Division FF of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. 45 CFR 1356.21 outlines eligible criteria which, if met, allows the State to pay foster care maintenance payments on behalf of eligible children, in accordance with the Title IV-E agency’s foster care maintenance payment rate schedule, to individuals serving as foster family homes, to childcare institutions, or to public or private child-placement or childcare agencies. 45 CFR 1356.40 outlines eligibility criteria which, if met, allows the State to pay a portion of the Federal Adoption Assistance maintenance payments and claim Federal financial participation for the payment. 45 CFR 1356.60 outlines the matching percentage of Title IV-E funding in Adoption Assistance subsidy payments and is based on the Federal Medical Assistance Program (FMAP) percentage. As a result of the COVID-19 public health emergency, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services granted a temporary increase to the FMAP rate that is used in determining the Federal share of expenditures for assistance payments under the Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance programs. This was permitted for each calendar quarter occurring during the period beginning on January 1, 2020. Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act enacted on December 29, 2022, the enhanced FMAP rate was required to be phased out and end completely on December 31, 2023. Condition: The Office of Child and Family Services (OCFS) administers the Foster Care – Title IV-E (Foster Care) and Adoption Assistance – Title IV-E (Adoption Assistance) programs for the State, outlined below: • The Foster Care program is designed to help states provide safe and stable out-of-home care for children under its jurisdiction until the children are returned home safely, placed with adoptive families, or placed in other planned arrangements for permanency. • The Adoption Assistance program provides Federal funds to states to facilitate the timely placement of children, whose special needs or circumstances would otherwise make them difficult to place, with adoptive families. Funds are available for a one-time payment to assist with the costs of adopting a child as well as for subsidies to adoptive families to assist with the care of the eligible child on an ongoing basis. The State is allowed to pay a portion of the Foster Care and Adoption Assistance maintenance payments and claim Federal financial participation for eligible clients. The FMAP rate is programmed into the child welfare information system by OCFS to apply the correct allocation between Federal and State funds to each transaction for eligible Foster Care and Adoption Assistance eligible clients. The Department of Health and Human Services’ Service Center (DHHS SC) submits quarterly financial reports that detail the allocation between Federal and State funds, based on the FMAP programmed into the report template obtained from the Federal agency. When discrepancies are identified, DHHS SC will correct the fund allocation in the State’s accounting system and report the benefit amounts using the correct FMAP rates. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 Foster Care benefit payments and 60 Adoption Assistance benefit payments and found that OCFS program personnel did not reduce the FMAP rate from January 1, 2024, through May 3, 2024. For 17 Foster Care and 29 Adoption Assistance benefit payments, OCFS continued to claim the enhanced rate of 64.15 percent for both programs, instead of the required 62.65 percent rate. While the incorrect rate was applied to individual client benefit payments, DHHS SC reported the correct FMAP rate and Federal participation amounts in the quarterly financial reports and drew Federal funds based on the correct FMAP rate for that period. DHHS SC and OCFS did not confirm that the correct rates were applied within the child welfare information system. OSA selected non-statistical random samples. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the State provided approximately: • 900 Foster Care clients with $5.4 million in Federal benefits; and • 4,200 Adoption Assistance clients with $24.7 million in Federal benefits. Cause: Lack of central oversight over communication of FMAP rate changes between DHHS SC and OCFS personnel Effect: • Inaccurate Federal and State allocation for client benefit payments within the child welfare information system, resulting in discrepancies between the State’s accounting system and the child welfare information system. • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Departments enhance policies and procedures to ensure the appropriate FMAP rates are communicated and entered into the child welfare information system accurately and timely. This will ensure that client benefit information is accurately reflected in the child welfare information system and agrees to the client benefit amounts in the State’s accounting system. Corrective Action Plan: See F-27 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. OCFS agrees there was a failure in the timely communication process of the step down FMAP rate to OCFS. OCFS has developed and will implement a corrective action plan to address the issue identified. Contact: Robert Blanchard, Associate Director, OCFS, DHHS, 207-624-7955 (State Number: 24-1110-02)

(2024-065) Title: Internal control over the Foster Care – Title IV-E and Adoption Assistance – Title IV-E programs FMAP rates needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Health and Human Services Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Office of Child and Family Services Health and Human Services Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Foster Care – Title IV-E (COVID-19) Adoption Assistance – Title IV-E (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.658; 93.659 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Matching, level of effort, earmarking Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 45 CFR 1356.21, .40, and .60; Public Law No. 117-328, Section 5131 of Division FF of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. 45 CFR 1356.21 outlines eligible criteria which, if met, allows the State to pay foster care maintenance payments on behalf of eligible children, in accordance with the Title IV-E agency’s foster care maintenance payment rate schedule, to individuals serving as foster family homes, to childcare institutions, or to public or private child-placement or childcare agencies. 45 CFR 1356.40 outlines eligibility criteria which, if met, allows the State to pay a portion of the Federal Adoption Assistance maintenance payments and claim Federal financial participation for the payment. 45 CFR 1356.60 outlines the matching percentage of Title IV-E funding in Adoption Assistance subsidy payments and is based on the Federal Medical Assistance Program (FMAP) percentage. As a result of the COVID-19 public health emergency, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services granted a temporary increase to the FMAP rate that is used in determining the Federal share of expenditures for assistance payments under the Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance programs. This was permitted for each calendar quarter occurring during the period beginning on January 1, 2020. Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act enacted on December 29, 2022, the enhanced FMAP rate was required to be phased out and end completely on December 31, 2023. Condition: The Office of Child and Family Services (OCFS) administers the Foster Care – Title IV-E (Foster Care) and Adoption Assistance – Title IV-E (Adoption Assistance) programs for the State, outlined below: • The Foster Care program is designed to help states provide safe and stable out-of-home care for children under its jurisdiction until the children are returned home safely, placed with adoptive families, or placed in other planned arrangements for permanency. • The Adoption Assistance program provides Federal funds to states to facilitate the timely placement of children, whose special needs or circumstances would otherwise make them difficult to place, with adoptive families. Funds are available for a one-time payment to assist with the costs of adopting a child as well as for subsidies to adoptive families to assist with the care of the eligible child on an ongoing basis. The State is allowed to pay a portion of the Foster Care and Adoption Assistance maintenance payments and claim Federal financial participation for eligible clients. The FMAP rate is programmed into the child welfare information system by OCFS to apply the correct allocation between Federal and State funds to each transaction for eligible Foster Care and Adoption Assistance eligible clients. The Department of Health and Human Services’ Service Center (DHHS SC) submits quarterly financial reports that detail the allocation between Federal and State funds, based on the FMAP programmed into the report template obtained from the Federal agency. When discrepancies are identified, DHHS SC will correct the fund allocation in the State’s accounting system and report the benefit amounts using the correct FMAP rates. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 Foster Care benefit payments and 60 Adoption Assistance benefit payments and found that OCFS program personnel did not reduce the FMAP rate from January 1, 2024, through May 3, 2024. For 17 Foster Care and 29 Adoption Assistance benefit payments, OCFS continued to claim the enhanced rate of 64.15 percent for both programs, instead of the required 62.65 percent rate. While the incorrect rate was applied to individual client benefit payments, DHHS SC reported the correct FMAP rate and Federal participation amounts in the quarterly financial reports and drew Federal funds based on the correct FMAP rate for that period. DHHS SC and OCFS did not confirm that the correct rates were applied within the child welfare information system. OSA selected non-statistical random samples. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the State provided approximately: • 900 Foster Care clients with $5.4 million in Federal benefits; and • 4,200 Adoption Assistance clients with $24.7 million in Federal benefits. Cause: Lack of central oversight over communication of FMAP rate changes between DHHS SC and OCFS personnel Effect: • Inaccurate Federal and State allocation for client benefit payments within the child welfare information system, resulting in discrepancies between the State’s accounting system and the child welfare information system. • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Departments enhance policies and procedures to ensure the appropriate FMAP rates are communicated and entered into the child welfare information system accurately and timely. This will ensure that client benefit information is accurately reflected in the child welfare information system and agrees to the client benefit amounts in the State’s accounting system. Corrective Action Plan: See F-27 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. OCFS agrees there was a failure in the timely communication process of the step down FMAP rate to OCFS. OCFS has developed and will implement a corrective action plan to address the issue identified. Contact: Robert Blanchard, Associate Director, OCFS, DHHS, 207-624-7955 (State Number: 24-1110-02)

(2024-066) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________, ________, and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-27 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0906-03)

(2024-066) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________, ________, and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-27 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0906-03)

(2024-067) Title: Internal control over Medicaid Nursing Facility audits needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Division of Audit Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Special tests and provisions Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 42 CFR 447.253(g); MaineCare Benefits Manual, Chapter III, Section 67 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department is required to provide for the periodic audits of the financial and statistical records of participating providers. The MaineCare Benefits Manual (MCBM) Chapter III, Section 67 outlines the documentation and support required to be included in a provider’s annual cost report filing submission to the Division of Audit. The Division of Audit’s requirements for reviewing the cost reports and performing uniform desk reviews is also outlined. Section 67 states that the Division of Audit must perform a uniform desk review on each Nursing Facility (NF) cost report submission within 365 days of receipt of an acceptable cost report filing. Condition: For each participating Long Term Care Facility, the Department must provide for the filing of uniform cost reports in order to establish payment rates and must provide for the periodic audits of financial and statistical records. The specific audit requirements will be established by the State plan. The MCBM states uniform desk reviews shall be completed within 365 days after receipt of an acceptable cost report filing, including financial statements and other information requested from the provider except in unusual situations including, but not limited to, delays in obtaining necessary information from a provider. Unless the Division of Audit intends to schedule an on-site audit or an unusual situation referenced above exists, a written summary report of findings and adjustments shall be issued upon completion of the uniform desk review. The Division of Audit did not complete NF audits in accordance with Federal regulations. The population of NF uniform desk reviews due for completion in fiscal year 2024 was 89. Of those 89 uniform desk reviews, none were completed at the time of audit testing in September 2024. Context: The Department: • provided $262.6 million in Federal Medicaid funding and $107.6 million in State Medicaid funding to NFs during fiscal year 2024. • completed 69 NF uniform desk reviews related to prior fiscal years in fiscal year 2024. Cause: Lack of resources Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal and State regulations • The determination of amounts owed to or from NFs is delayed. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department reallocate resources to address the backlog of NF uniform desk reviews. Timely audit issuance will minimize the impact on providers of potential payables and receivables. Corrective Action Plan: See F-27 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding and cause. The lack of resources is the result of high vacancy rates (30%) for the Division of Audit and staff working on reviews of COVID funding. The Division of Audit has completed the reviews required for COVID funding and will be redirecting staff to work on the Medicaid audits. The Division of Audit is working to fill all vacant positions, so resources are available for these audits. Lastly, the Department has implemented a new reimbursement methodology for Nursing Facilities which will reduce the amount of audit testing required. Contact: Herb Downs, Director, Division of Audit, DHHS, 207-287-2778 (State Number: 24-1106-01)

(2024-067) Title: Internal control over Medicaid Nursing Facility audits needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Division of Audit Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Special tests and provisions Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 42 CFR 447.253(g); MaineCare Benefits Manual, Chapter III, Section 67 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department is required to provide for the periodic audits of the financial and statistical records of participating providers. The MaineCare Benefits Manual (MCBM) Chapter III, Section 67 outlines the documentation and support required to be included in a provider’s annual cost report filing submission to the Division of Audit. The Division of Audit’s requirements for reviewing the cost reports and performing uniform desk reviews is also outlined. Section 67 states that the Division of Audit must perform a uniform desk review on each Nursing Facility (NF) cost report submission within 365 days of receipt of an acceptable cost report filing. Condition: For each participating Long Term Care Facility, the Department must provide for the filing of uniform cost reports in order to establish payment rates and must provide for the periodic audits of financial and statistical records. The specific audit requirements will be established by the State plan. The MCBM states uniform desk reviews shall be completed within 365 days after receipt of an acceptable cost report filing, including financial statements and other information requested from the provider except in unusual situations including, but not limited to, delays in obtaining necessary information from a provider. Unless the Division of Audit intends to schedule an on-site audit or an unusual situation referenced above exists, a written summary report of findings and adjustments shall be issued upon completion of the uniform desk review. The Division of Audit did not complete NF audits in accordance with Federal regulations. The population of NF uniform desk reviews due for completion in fiscal year 2024 was 89. Of those 89 uniform desk reviews, none were completed at the time of audit testing in September 2024. Context: The Department: • provided $262.6 million in Federal Medicaid funding and $107.6 million in State Medicaid funding to NFs during fiscal year 2024. • completed 69 NF uniform desk reviews related to prior fiscal years in fiscal year 2024. Cause: Lack of resources Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal and State regulations • The determination of amounts owed to or from NFs is delayed. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department reallocate resources to address the backlog of NF uniform desk reviews. Timely audit issuance will minimize the impact on providers of potential payables and receivables. Corrective Action Plan: See F-27 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding and cause. The lack of resources is the result of high vacancy rates (30%) for the Division of Audit and staff working on reviews of COVID funding. The Division of Audit has completed the reviews required for COVID funding and will be redirecting staff to work on the Medicaid audits. The Division of Audit is working to fill all vacant positions, so resources are available for these audits. Lastly, the Department has implemented a new reimbursement methodology for Nursing Facilities which will reduce the amount of audit testing required. Contact: Herb Downs, Director, Division of Audit, DHHS, 207-287-2778 (State Number: 24-1106-01)

(2024-067) Title: Internal control over Medicaid Nursing Facility audits needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Division of Audit Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Special tests and provisions Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 42 CFR 447.253(g); MaineCare Benefits Manual, Chapter III, Section 67 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department is required to provide for the periodic audits of the financial and statistical records of participating providers. The MaineCare Benefits Manual (MCBM) Chapter III, Section 67 outlines the documentation and support required to be included in a provider’s annual cost report filing submission to the Division of Audit. The Division of Audit’s requirements for reviewing the cost reports and performing uniform desk reviews is also outlined. Section 67 states that the Division of Audit must perform a uniform desk review on each Nursing Facility (NF) cost report submission within 365 days of receipt of an acceptable cost report filing. Condition: For each participating Long Term Care Facility, the Department must provide for the filing of uniform cost reports in order to establish payment rates and must provide for the periodic audits of financial and statistical records. The specific audit requirements will be established by the State plan. The MCBM states uniform desk reviews shall be completed within 365 days after receipt of an acceptable cost report filing, including financial statements and other information requested from the provider except in unusual situations including, but not limited to, delays in obtaining necessary information from a provider. Unless the Division of Audit intends to schedule an on-site audit or an unusual situation referenced above exists, a written summary report of findings and adjustments shall be issued upon completion of the uniform desk review. The Division of Audit did not complete NF audits in accordance with Federal regulations. The population of NF uniform desk reviews due for completion in fiscal year 2024 was 89. Of those 89 uniform desk reviews, none were completed at the time of audit testing in September 2024. Context: The Department: • provided $262.6 million in Federal Medicaid funding and $107.6 million in State Medicaid funding to NFs during fiscal year 2024. • completed 69 NF uniform desk reviews related to prior fiscal years in fiscal year 2024. Cause: Lack of resources Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal and State regulations • The determination of amounts owed to or from NFs is delayed. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department reallocate resources to address the backlog of NF uniform desk reviews. Timely audit issuance will minimize the impact on providers of potential payables and receivables. Corrective Action Plan: See F-27 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding and cause. The lack of resources is the result of high vacancy rates (30%) for the Division of Audit and staff working on reviews of COVID funding. The Division of Audit has completed the reviews required for COVID funding and will be redirecting staff to work on the Medicaid audits. The Division of Audit is working to fill all vacant positions, so resources are available for these audits. Lastly, the Department has implemented a new reimbursement methodology for Nursing Facilities which will reduce the amount of audit testing required. Contact: Herb Downs, Director, Division of Audit, DHHS, 207-287-2778 (State Number: 24-1106-01)

(2024-067) Title: Internal control over Medicaid Nursing Facility audits needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Division of Audit Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Special tests and provisions Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 42 CFR 447.253(g); MaineCare Benefits Manual, Chapter III, Section 67 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department is required to provide for the periodic audits of the financial and statistical records of participating providers. The MaineCare Benefits Manual (MCBM) Chapter III, Section 67 outlines the documentation and support required to be included in a provider’s annual cost report filing submission to the Division of Audit. The Division of Audit’s requirements for reviewing the cost reports and performing uniform desk reviews is also outlined. Section 67 states that the Division of Audit must perform a uniform desk review on each Nursing Facility (NF) cost report submission within 365 days of receipt of an acceptable cost report filing. Condition: For each participating Long Term Care Facility, the Department must provide for the filing of uniform cost reports in order to establish payment rates and must provide for the periodic audits of financial and statistical records. The specific audit requirements will be established by the State plan. The MCBM states uniform desk reviews shall be completed within 365 days after receipt of an acceptable cost report filing, including financial statements and other information requested from the provider except in unusual situations including, but not limited to, delays in obtaining necessary information from a provider. Unless the Division of Audit intends to schedule an on-site audit or an unusual situation referenced above exists, a written summary report of findings and adjustments shall be issued upon completion of the uniform desk review. The Division of Audit did not complete NF audits in accordance with Federal regulations. The population of NF uniform desk reviews due for completion in fiscal year 2024 was 89. Of those 89 uniform desk reviews, none were completed at the time of audit testing in September 2024. Context: The Department: • provided $262.6 million in Federal Medicaid funding and $107.6 million in State Medicaid funding to NFs during fiscal year 2024. • completed 69 NF uniform desk reviews related to prior fiscal years in fiscal year 2024. Cause: Lack of resources Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal and State regulations • The determination of amounts owed to or from NFs is delayed. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department reallocate resources to address the backlog of NF uniform desk reviews. Timely audit issuance will minimize the impact on providers of potential payables and receivables. Corrective Action Plan: See F-27 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding and cause. The lack of resources is the result of high vacancy rates (30%) for the Division of Audit and staff working on reviews of COVID funding. The Division of Audit has completed the reviews required for COVID funding and will be redirecting staff to work on the Medicaid audits. The Division of Audit is working to fill all vacant positions, so resources are available for these audits. Lastly, the Department has implemented a new reimbursement methodology for Nursing Facilities which will reduce the amount of audit testing required. Contact: Herb Downs, Director, Division of Audit, DHHS, 207-287-2778 (State Number: 24-1106-01)

(2024-068) Title: Internal control over Medicare Part B premium payments needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 42 CFR 431.625 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. 42 CFR 431.625 outlines eligibility criteria which, if met, allows the State to pay a portion of the Federal Medicare Part B premium on behalf of the client and claim Federal financial participation in the payment. Clients may be deemed eligible by the Federal government as indicated by a Federal Buy-In code, or by the State as indicated by eligibility status in the Automated Client Eligibility System (ACES). Condition: The Department receives monthly invoices from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for Medicare Part B premiums. CMS provides a separate detailed listing of transactions relating to the status of Medicaid clients’ Medicare Part B (Buy-In) eligibility that the Office for Family Independence (OFI) Data Team utilizes to produce the Monthly Buy-In Report. OFI eligibility personnel use the Monthly Buy-In Report to reconcile Buy-In actions taken by and between CMS and ACES to ensure Medicare Part B payments are made only to those deemed eligible. The OFI Data Team produced 12 Monthly Buy-In Reports throughout fiscal year 2024. The Department could not provide documentation that reports were reviewed or corrective action was taken for seven months of potential discrepancies. Context: In fiscal year 2024, approximately $123 million in Federal funds and $70 million in State funds were paid to CMS for Medicare Part B premiums. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Potential Medicare Part B premiums paid by the State for ineligible clients • Potential questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement oversight procedures to ensure that Monthly Buy-In Reports are reviewed, corrective action is implemented if required, and documentation is retained. Corrective Action Plan: See F-28 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. There has been marked improvement in our results reviewing and acting on these reports since our MaineCare Program Integrity team became fully staffed in March 2024. We intend to review our processes further and regularly to ensure satisfaction of the requirement. The Department provided documentation to support that review and corrective actions were completed for five of the twelve months. Documentation could not be provided to support full review for seven months. Contact: Ian Yaffe, Director, Office for Family Independence, DHHS, 207-592-1481 (State Number: 24-1106-03)

(2024-068) Title: Internal control over Medicare Part B premium payments needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 42 CFR 431.625 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. 42 CFR 431.625 outlines eligibility criteria which, if met, allows the State to pay a portion of the Federal Medicare Part B premium on behalf of the client and claim Federal financial participation in the payment. Clients may be deemed eligible by the Federal government as indicated by a Federal Buy-In code, or by the State as indicated by eligibility status in the Automated Client Eligibility System (ACES). Condition: The Department receives monthly invoices from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for Medicare Part B premiums. CMS provides a separate detailed listing of transactions relating to the status of Medicaid clients’ Medicare Part B (Buy-In) eligibility that the Office for Family Independence (OFI) Data Team utilizes to produce the Monthly Buy-In Report. OFI eligibility personnel use the Monthly Buy-In Report to reconcile Buy-In actions taken by and between CMS and ACES to ensure Medicare Part B payments are made only to those deemed eligible. The OFI Data Team produced 12 Monthly Buy-In Reports throughout fiscal year 2024. The Department could not provide documentation that reports were reviewed or corrective action was taken for seven months of potential discrepancies. Context: In fiscal year 2024, approximately $123 million in Federal funds and $70 million in State funds were paid to CMS for Medicare Part B premiums. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Potential Medicare Part B premiums paid by the State for ineligible clients • Potential questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement oversight procedures to ensure that Monthly Buy-In Reports are reviewed, corrective action is implemented if required, and documentation is retained. Corrective Action Plan: See F-28 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. There has been marked improvement in our results reviewing and acting on these reports since our MaineCare Program Integrity team became fully staffed in March 2024. We intend to review our processes further and regularly to ensure satisfaction of the requirement. The Department provided documentation to support that review and corrective actions were completed for five of the twelve months. Documentation could not be provided to support full review for seven months. Contact: Ian Yaffe, Director, Office for Family Independence, DHHS, 207-592-1481 (State Number: 24-1106-03)

(2024-068) Title: Internal control over Medicare Part B premium payments needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 42 CFR 431.625 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. 42 CFR 431.625 outlines eligibility criteria which, if met, allows the State to pay a portion of the Federal Medicare Part B premium on behalf of the client and claim Federal financial participation in the payment. Clients may be deemed eligible by the Federal government as indicated by a Federal Buy-In code, or by the State as indicated by eligibility status in the Automated Client Eligibility System (ACES). Condition: The Department receives monthly invoices from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for Medicare Part B premiums. CMS provides a separate detailed listing of transactions relating to the status of Medicaid clients’ Medicare Part B (Buy-In) eligibility that the Office for Family Independence (OFI) Data Team utilizes to produce the Monthly Buy-In Report. OFI eligibility personnel use the Monthly Buy-In Report to reconcile Buy-In actions taken by and between CMS and ACES to ensure Medicare Part B payments are made only to those deemed eligible. The OFI Data Team produced 12 Monthly Buy-In Reports throughout fiscal year 2024. The Department could not provide documentation that reports were reviewed or corrective action was taken for seven months of potential discrepancies. Context: In fiscal year 2024, approximately $123 million in Federal funds and $70 million in State funds were paid to CMS for Medicare Part B premiums. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Potential Medicare Part B premiums paid by the State for ineligible clients • Potential questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement oversight procedures to ensure that Monthly Buy-In Reports are reviewed, corrective action is implemented if required, and documentation is retained. Corrective Action Plan: See F-28 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. There has been marked improvement in our results reviewing and acting on these reports since our MaineCare Program Integrity team became fully staffed in March 2024. We intend to review our processes further and regularly to ensure satisfaction of the requirement. The Department provided documentation to support that review and corrective actions were completed for five of the twelve months. Documentation could not be provided to support full review for seven months. Contact: Ian Yaffe, Director, Office for Family Independence, DHHS, 207-592-1481 (State Number: 24-1106-03)

(2024-068) Title: Internal control over Medicare Part B premium payments needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 42 CFR 431.625 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. 42 CFR 431.625 outlines eligibility criteria which, if met, allows the State to pay a portion of the Federal Medicare Part B premium on behalf of the client and claim Federal financial participation in the payment. Clients may be deemed eligible by the Federal government as indicated by a Federal Buy-In code, or by the State as indicated by eligibility status in the Automated Client Eligibility System (ACES). Condition: The Department receives monthly invoices from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for Medicare Part B premiums. CMS provides a separate detailed listing of transactions relating to the status of Medicaid clients’ Medicare Part B (Buy-In) eligibility that the Office for Family Independence (OFI) Data Team utilizes to produce the Monthly Buy-In Report. OFI eligibility personnel use the Monthly Buy-In Report to reconcile Buy-In actions taken by and between CMS and ACES to ensure Medicare Part B payments are made only to those deemed eligible. The OFI Data Team produced 12 Monthly Buy-In Reports throughout fiscal year 2024. The Department could not provide documentation that reports were reviewed or corrective action was taken for seven months of potential discrepancies. Context: In fiscal year 2024, approximately $123 million in Federal funds and $70 million in State funds were paid to CMS for Medicare Part B premiums. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Potential Medicare Part B premiums paid by the State for ineligible clients • Potential questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement oversight procedures to ensure that Monthly Buy-In Reports are reviewed, corrective action is implemented if required, and documentation is retained. Corrective Action Plan: See F-28 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. There has been marked improvement in our results reviewing and acting on these reports since our MaineCare Program Integrity team became fully staffed in March 2024. We intend to review our processes further and regularly to ensure satisfaction of the requirement. The Department provided documentation to support that review and corrective actions were completed for five of the twelve months. Documentation could not be provided to support full review for seven months. Contact: Ian Yaffe, Director, Office for Family Independence, DHHS, 207-592-1481 (State Number: 24-1106-03)

(2024-069) Title: Internal control over Medicaid cost of care assessments and deductions needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See scheduleof Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Office of MaineCare Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 42 CFR 435.725; MaineCare Eligibility Manual, Part 14, Section 6 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. The Department must reduce its payment to an institution for services provided to an individual by the amount that remains after deducting certain amounts from the member’s total income. This remaining amount is the member’s maximum share of the cost, known as cost of care (COC). Condition: A COC assessment represents the required contribution that a MaineCare recipient must pay toward care in a Long Term Care Facility (LTCF). The Office for Family Independence (OFI) is responsible for COC assessments for all Medicaid members in the State. COC assessments are either calculated by the Automated Client Eligibility System or calculated manually by eligibility specialists. System-generated COC assessments are not subject to secondary review. A COC deduction represents the amount of assessment that was deducted from a paid claim. Members may have an assessment calculated but may never have a claim with a deduction utilizing that assessment. The Office of MaineCare Services (OMS) is responsible for applying assessments to submitted claims prior to payment. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 COC assessments and related deductions from paid claims. OSA identified: • one COC assessment was not calculated correctly or retroactively adjusted. The COC was higher than it should have been by $10. The assessment was $1,099 and should have been $1,089 for six months during the fiscal year. This member had six claims where the incorrect COC was applied. • one COC deduction was not deducted correctly from the paid claim. The COC deducted was lower than it should have been by $22. The assessment was $1,713 for two months during the fiscal year and the amount that was deducted was $1,691. This member had two claims where the incorrect COC deduction was applied. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, approximately: • 18,000 COC assessments were calculated by OFI; • 8,500 members had COC assessments; and • $627 million was paid to LTCFs. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate procedures to ensure COC assessments are calculated correctly • Lack of adequate procedures to ensure system exception reports are complete and accurate Effect: • Inaccurate COC assessments, deductions, and retroactive changes may result in overpayments or underpayments for members or the State. • Potential questioned costs and disallowances Recommendation: We recommend that: • OFI enhance oversight procedures to ensure that COC assessments are calculated and deducted correctly. • OMS collaborate with OFI to ensure that system exception reports capture all COC-related claims which require adjustments. Corrective Action Plan: See F-28 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. The Department agrees with the two exceptions found by the Office of the State Auditor. However, we believe that the Department has reasonable assurance with the controls in place that results in a 97% compliance with the COC calculations, which has not decreased from previous findings. No corrective action is necessary as a result of an error rate of only 3%. The Department will continue to actively manage and monitor the Cost of Care system in compliance with federal regulations. In response to the first of two errors identified by OSA, OMS will request an update to an existing Cost of Care report supplied by a third-party vendor. Changes to cost of care are contained in the Retroactive Cost of Care Report, however if there is a second determination of cost of care in a month and the result is identical to the first change in the month, neither is included in the report. This is an error in the report logic that must be corrected.  A Change Request will be created to modify and correct the report so that the latest change in the month will be reported to be acted on by OMS. Contact: Ian Yaffe, Director, Office for Family Independence, DHHS, 207-592-1481 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department agrees with the exceptions identified in the Condition. The Department’s disagreement is derived from the three percent sample payment error rate. The Department asserts that the error rate is acceptable and thus, no corrective action is necessary; however, for the two exceptions OSA identified, existing control procedures resulted in inaccurate claim payments. While OSA recognizes that achieving 100 percent accuracy in calculating COC assessments and applying COC deductions would likely not be feasible, the identified control deficiencies indicate that a review of operating procedures and implementation of improvements is necessary. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1106-05)

(2024-069) Title: Internal control over Medicaid cost of care assessments and deductions needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See scheduleof Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Office of MaineCare Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 42 CFR 435.725; MaineCare Eligibility Manual, Part 14, Section 6 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. The Department must reduce its payment to an institution for services provided to an individual by the amount that remains after deducting certain amounts from the member’s total income. This remaining amount is the member’s maximum share of the cost, known as cost of care (COC). Condition: A COC assessment represents the required contribution that a MaineCare recipient must pay toward care in a Long Term Care Facility (LTCF). The Office for Family Independence (OFI) is responsible for COC assessments for all Medicaid members in the State. COC assessments are either calculated by the Automated Client Eligibility System or calculated manually by eligibility specialists. System-generated COC assessments are not subject to secondary review. A COC deduction represents the amount of assessment that was deducted from a paid claim. Members may have an assessment calculated but may never have a claim with a deduction utilizing that assessment. The Office of MaineCare Services (OMS) is responsible for applying assessments to submitted claims prior to payment. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 COC assessments and related deductions from paid claims. OSA identified: • one COC assessment was not calculated correctly or retroactively adjusted. The COC was higher than it should have been by $10. The assessment was $1,099 and should have been $1,089 for six months during the fiscal year. This member had six claims where the incorrect COC was applied. • one COC deduction was not deducted correctly from the paid claim. The COC deducted was lower than it should have been by $22. The assessment was $1,713 for two months during the fiscal year and the amount that was deducted was $1,691. This member had two claims where the incorrect COC deduction was applied. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, approximately: • 18,000 COC assessments were calculated by OFI; • 8,500 members had COC assessments; and • $627 million was paid to LTCFs. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate procedures to ensure COC assessments are calculated correctly • Lack of adequate procedures to ensure system exception reports are complete and accurate Effect: • Inaccurate COC assessments, deductions, and retroactive changes may result in overpayments or underpayments for members or the State. • Potential questioned costs and disallowances Recommendation: We recommend that: • OFI enhance oversight procedures to ensure that COC assessments are calculated and deducted correctly. • OMS collaborate with OFI to ensure that system exception reports capture all COC-related claims which require adjustments. Corrective Action Plan: See F-28 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. The Department agrees with the two exceptions found by the Office of the State Auditor. However, we believe that the Department has reasonable assurance with the controls in place that results in a 97% compliance with the COC calculations, which has not decreased from previous findings. No corrective action is necessary as a result of an error rate of only 3%. The Department will continue to actively manage and monitor the Cost of Care system in compliance with federal regulations. In response to the first of two errors identified by OSA, OMS will request an update to an existing Cost of Care report supplied by a third-party vendor. Changes to cost of care are contained in the Retroactive Cost of Care Report, however if there is a second determination of cost of care in a month and the result is identical to the first change in the month, neither is included in the report. This is an error in the report logic that must be corrected.  A Change Request will be created to modify and correct the report so that the latest change in the month will be reported to be acted on by OMS. Contact: Ian Yaffe, Director, Office for Family Independence, DHHS, 207-592-1481 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department agrees with the exceptions identified in the Condition. The Department’s disagreement is derived from the three percent sample payment error rate. The Department asserts that the error rate is acceptable and thus, no corrective action is necessary; however, for the two exceptions OSA identified, existing control procedures resulted in inaccurate claim payments. While OSA recognizes that achieving 100 percent accuracy in calculating COC assessments and applying COC deductions would likely not be feasible, the identified control deficiencies indicate that a review of operating procedures and implementation of improvements is necessary. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1106-05)

(2024-069) Title: Internal control over Medicaid cost of care assessments and deductions needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See scheduleof Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Office of MaineCare Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 42 CFR 435.725; MaineCare Eligibility Manual, Part 14, Section 6 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. The Department must reduce its payment to an institution for services provided to an individual by the amount that remains after deducting certain amounts from the member’s total income. This remaining amount is the member’s maximum share of the cost, known as cost of care (COC). Condition: A COC assessment represents the required contribution that a MaineCare recipient must pay toward care in a Long Term Care Facility (LTCF). The Office for Family Independence (OFI) is responsible for COC assessments for all Medicaid members in the State. COC assessments are either calculated by the Automated Client Eligibility System or calculated manually by eligibility specialists. System-generated COC assessments are not subject to secondary review. A COC deduction represents the amount of assessment that was deducted from a paid claim. Members may have an assessment calculated but may never have a claim with a deduction utilizing that assessment. The Office of MaineCare Services (OMS) is responsible for applying assessments to submitted claims prior to payment. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 COC assessments and related deductions from paid claims. OSA identified: • one COC assessment was not calculated correctly or retroactively adjusted. The COC was higher than it should have been by $10. The assessment was $1,099 and should have been $1,089 for six months during the fiscal year. This member had six claims where the incorrect COC was applied. • one COC deduction was not deducted correctly from the paid claim. The COC deducted was lower than it should have been by $22. The assessment was $1,713 for two months during the fiscal year and the amount that was deducted was $1,691. This member had two claims where the incorrect COC deduction was applied. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, approximately: • 18,000 COC assessments were calculated by OFI; • 8,500 members had COC assessments; and • $627 million was paid to LTCFs. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate procedures to ensure COC assessments are calculated correctly • Lack of adequate procedures to ensure system exception reports are complete and accurate Effect: • Inaccurate COC assessments, deductions, and retroactive changes may result in overpayments or underpayments for members or the State. • Potential questioned costs and disallowances Recommendation: We recommend that: • OFI enhance oversight procedures to ensure that COC assessments are calculated and deducted correctly. • OMS collaborate with OFI to ensure that system exception reports capture all COC-related claims which require adjustments. Corrective Action Plan: See F-28 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. The Department agrees with the two exceptions found by the Office of the State Auditor. However, we believe that the Department has reasonable assurance with the controls in place that results in a 97% compliance with the COC calculations, which has not decreased from previous findings. No corrective action is necessary as a result of an error rate of only 3%. The Department will continue to actively manage and monitor the Cost of Care system in compliance with federal regulations. In response to the first of two errors identified by OSA, OMS will request an update to an existing Cost of Care report supplied by a third-party vendor. Changes to cost of care are contained in the Retroactive Cost of Care Report, however if there is a second determination of cost of care in a month and the result is identical to the first change in the month, neither is included in the report. This is an error in the report logic that must be corrected.  A Change Request will be created to modify and correct the report so that the latest change in the month will be reported to be acted on by OMS. Contact: Ian Yaffe, Director, Office for Family Independence, DHHS, 207-592-1481 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department agrees with the exceptions identified in the Condition. The Department’s disagreement is derived from the three percent sample payment error rate. The Department asserts that the error rate is acceptable and thus, no corrective action is necessary; however, for the two exceptions OSA identified, existing control procedures resulted in inaccurate claim payments. While OSA recognizes that achieving 100 percent accuracy in calculating COC assessments and applying COC deductions would likely not be feasible, the identified control deficiencies indicate that a review of operating procedures and implementation of improvements is necessary. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1106-05)

(2024-069) Title: Internal control over Medicaid cost of care assessments and deductions needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See scheduleof Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Office of MaineCare Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 42 CFR 435.725; MaineCare Eligibility Manual, Part 14, Section 6 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. The Department must reduce its payment to an institution for services provided to an individual by the amount that remains after deducting certain amounts from the member’s total income. This remaining amount is the member’s maximum share of the cost, known as cost of care (COC). Condition: A COC assessment represents the required contribution that a MaineCare recipient must pay toward care in a Long Term Care Facility (LTCF). The Office for Family Independence (OFI) is responsible for COC assessments for all Medicaid members in the State. COC assessments are either calculated by the Automated Client Eligibility System or calculated manually by eligibility specialists. System-generated COC assessments are not subject to secondary review. A COC deduction represents the amount of assessment that was deducted from a paid claim. Members may have an assessment calculated but may never have a claim with a deduction utilizing that assessment. The Office of MaineCare Services (OMS) is responsible for applying assessments to submitted claims prior to payment. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 COC assessments and related deductions from paid claims. OSA identified: • one COC assessment was not calculated correctly or retroactively adjusted. The COC was higher than it should have been by $10. The assessment was $1,099 and should have been $1,089 for six months during the fiscal year. This member had six claims where the incorrect COC was applied. • one COC deduction was not deducted correctly from the paid claim. The COC deducted was lower than it should have been by $22. The assessment was $1,713 for two months during the fiscal year and the amount that was deducted was $1,691. This member had two claims where the incorrect COC deduction was applied. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, approximately: • 18,000 COC assessments were calculated by OFI; • 8,500 members had COC assessments; and • $627 million was paid to LTCFs. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate procedures to ensure COC assessments are calculated correctly • Lack of adequate procedures to ensure system exception reports are complete and accurate Effect: • Inaccurate COC assessments, deductions, and retroactive changes may result in overpayments or underpayments for members or the State. • Potential questioned costs and disallowances Recommendation: We recommend that: • OFI enhance oversight procedures to ensure that COC assessments are calculated and deducted correctly. • OMS collaborate with OFI to ensure that system exception reports capture all COC-related claims which require adjustments. Corrective Action Plan: See F-28 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. The Department agrees with the two exceptions found by the Office of the State Auditor. However, we believe that the Department has reasonable assurance with the controls in place that results in a 97% compliance with the COC calculations, which has not decreased from previous findings. No corrective action is necessary as a result of an error rate of only 3%. The Department will continue to actively manage and monitor the Cost of Care system in compliance with federal regulations. In response to the first of two errors identified by OSA, OMS will request an update to an existing Cost of Care report supplied by a third-party vendor. Changes to cost of care are contained in the Retroactive Cost of Care Report, however if there is a second determination of cost of care in a month and the result is identical to the first change in the month, neither is included in the report. This is an error in the report logic that must be corrected.  A Change Request will be created to modify and correct the report so that the latest change in the month will be reported to be acted on by OMS. Contact: Ian Yaffe, Director, Office for Family Independence, DHHS, 207-592-1481 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department agrees with the exceptions identified in the Condition. The Department’s disagreement is derived from the three percent sample payment error rate. The Department asserts that the error rate is acceptable and thus, no corrective action is necessary; however, for the two exceptions OSA identified, existing control procedures resulted in inaccurate claim payments. While OSA recognizes that achieving 100 percent accuracy in calculating COC assessments and applying COC deductions would likely not be feasible, the identified control deficiencies indicate that a review of operating procedures and implementation of improvements is necessary. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1106-05)

(2024-070) Title: Internal control over Medicaid drug rebates needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office of MaineCare Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; Section 1927 of the Social Security Act (42 USC 1396r-8) The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Section 1927 of the Social Security Act requires manufacturers that wish to have their outpatient drugs covered by Medicaid to enter into an agreement with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) under which the manufacturers agree to pay rebates for drugs dispensed and paid for by the State Medicaid agencies under the State plan. Drug rebates are shared between the State and Federal government. Condition: Drug manufacturers are required to submit a list of all covered outpatient drugs, along with each drug’s average manufacturer price and “best price” to CMS. Utilizing this information, CMS calculates a unit rebate amount (URA) for each covered outpatient drug and provides the amounts to the State on a quarterly basis. The Department is required to maintain drug utilization data that identifies, by National Drug Code (NDC), the number of units of each covered outpatient drug for which the Department has paid pharmacy providers. The utilization data is provided to CMS and the manufacturers. The number of dispensed units is applied to the URA to determine the rebate amount due from each manufacturer. The State contracts with a vendor to calculate the drug rebate amounts and invoice manufacturers for drug rebates. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) identified that the Department does not have procedures in place to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the drug rebate amounts invoiced by the vendor. Though the Department validates that only rebatable drugs are invoiced and all rebatable drugs are included for invoicing, this review is performed after the invoicing cycle. In addition, the Department does not compare drug utilization data to the number of dispensed units invoiced, or corroborate that the correct URA is applied to each NDC to ensure that the vendor has calculated the rebate correctly. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the State invoiced approximately $300 million for rebatable drugs and received approximately $216 million in rebates. Of the $216 million in rebates, approximately $144 million was returned to the Federal government. Due to the amount of time rebate negotiations may take, discrepancies will exist between the invoiced total and the total amount of rebates received. Cause: • Lack of adequate procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Inaccurate or incomplete invoicing of drug rebates would result in overpayments or underpayments to the State and Federal government. • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement procedures to confirm the drug rebate amounts calculated and invoiced by the vendor are accurate and complete, including: • validating that only rebatable drugs are invoiced and all rebatable drugs are included for invoicing; • comparing drug utilization data to the number of dispensed units invoiced; and • corroborating the correct URA is applied to each NDC. This will ensure that correct drug rebate amounts are returned to the State and Federal government. Corrective Action Plan: See F-28 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. PRIMS (Pharmacy Rebate Information Management System), provided to the State of Maine by a third-party vendor, is a proven system in production in many locations and PRIMS has passed a wide variety of Federal and State audits. The drug rebate program is complex and there are numerous steps in the process which have already been demonstrated and/or provided to the Office of State Auditor. The controls described to the State Auditor previously (Pre-invoicing controls, pharmacy claims controls and medical claims controls) address all three of the Auditors’ Recommendations. Contact: Michelle Probert, Director, Office of MaineCare Services, DHHS, 207-287-2093 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: 2 CFR 200.303 requires the State to establish and maintain effective internal controls. The Department’s Management Response stating that the vendor’s drug rebate information system “is a proven system in production in many locations” that “has passed a wide variety of Federal and State audits” only further validates that the Department is fully relying on the vendor to ensure the accuracy and completeness of drug rebate invoices. As stated in Management’s Response “the drug rebate program is complex” which further emphasizes the need for proper oversight. Existing reliance on the vendor demonstrates that the Department does not have adequate oversight procedures in place. In addition, the Department asserts controls are in place to address OSA’s Recommendation; however, the controls referenced in Management’s Response do not adequately address the risk associated with the issues noted in the Condition. The pre-invoicing controls referenced by the Department are performed at a summary level and the pharmacy and medical claims controls are not directly tied to the drug rebate invoicing process. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1106-07)

(2024-070) Title: Internal control over Medicaid drug rebates needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office of MaineCare Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; Section 1927 of the Social Security Act (42 USC 1396r-8) The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Section 1927 of the Social Security Act requires manufacturers that wish to have their outpatient drugs covered by Medicaid to enter into an agreement with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) under which the manufacturers agree to pay rebates for drugs dispensed and paid for by the State Medicaid agencies under the State plan. Drug rebates are shared between the State and Federal government. Condition: Drug manufacturers are required to submit a list of all covered outpatient drugs, along with each drug’s average manufacturer price and “best price” to CMS. Utilizing this information, CMS calculates a unit rebate amount (URA) for each covered outpatient drug and provides the amounts to the State on a quarterly basis. The Department is required to maintain drug utilization data that identifies, by National Drug Code (NDC), the number of units of each covered outpatient drug for which the Department has paid pharmacy providers. The utilization data is provided to CMS and the manufacturers. The number of dispensed units is applied to the URA to determine the rebate amount due from each manufacturer. The State contracts with a vendor to calculate the drug rebate amounts and invoice manufacturers for drug rebates. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) identified that the Department does not have procedures in place to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the drug rebate amounts invoiced by the vendor. Though the Department validates that only rebatable drugs are invoiced and all rebatable drugs are included for invoicing, this review is performed after the invoicing cycle. In addition, the Department does not compare drug utilization data to the number of dispensed units invoiced, or corroborate that the correct URA is applied to each NDC to ensure that the vendor has calculated the rebate correctly. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the State invoiced approximately $300 million for rebatable drugs and received approximately $216 million in rebates. Of the $216 million in rebates, approximately $144 million was returned to the Federal government. Due to the amount of time rebate negotiations may take, discrepancies will exist between the invoiced total and the total amount of rebates received. Cause: • Lack of adequate procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Inaccurate or incomplete invoicing of drug rebates would result in overpayments or underpayments to the State and Federal government. • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement procedures to confirm the drug rebate amounts calculated and invoiced by the vendor are accurate and complete, including: • validating that only rebatable drugs are invoiced and all rebatable drugs are included for invoicing; • comparing drug utilization data to the number of dispensed units invoiced; and • corroborating the correct URA is applied to each NDC. This will ensure that correct drug rebate amounts are returned to the State and Federal government. Corrective Action Plan: See F-28 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. PRIMS (Pharmacy Rebate Information Management System), provided to the State of Maine by a third-party vendor, is a proven system in production in many locations and PRIMS has passed a wide variety of Federal and State audits. The drug rebate program is complex and there are numerous steps in the process which have already been demonstrated and/or provided to the Office of State Auditor. The controls described to the State Auditor previously (Pre-invoicing controls, pharmacy claims controls and medical claims controls) address all three of the Auditors’ Recommendations. Contact: Michelle Probert, Director, Office of MaineCare Services, DHHS, 207-287-2093 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: 2 CFR 200.303 requires the State to establish and maintain effective internal controls. The Department’s Management Response stating that the vendor’s drug rebate information system “is a proven system in production in many locations” that “has passed a wide variety of Federal and State audits” only further validates that the Department is fully relying on the vendor to ensure the accuracy and completeness of drug rebate invoices. As stated in Management’s Response “the drug rebate program is complex” which further emphasizes the need for proper oversight. Existing reliance on the vendor demonstrates that the Department does not have adequate oversight procedures in place. In addition, the Department asserts controls are in place to address OSA’s Recommendation; however, the controls referenced in Management’s Response do not adequately address the risk associated with the issues noted in the Condition. The pre-invoicing controls referenced by the Department are performed at a summary level and the pharmacy and medical claims controls are not directly tied to the drug rebate invoicing process. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1106-07)

(2024-070) Title: Internal control over Medicaid drug rebates needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office of MaineCare Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; Section 1927 of the Social Security Act (42 USC 1396r-8) The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Section 1927 of the Social Security Act requires manufacturers that wish to have their outpatient drugs covered by Medicaid to enter into an agreement with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) under which the manufacturers agree to pay rebates for drugs dispensed and paid for by the State Medicaid agencies under the State plan. Drug rebates are shared between the State and Federal government. Condition: Drug manufacturers are required to submit a list of all covered outpatient drugs, along with each drug’s average manufacturer price and “best price” to CMS. Utilizing this information, CMS calculates a unit rebate amount (URA) for each covered outpatient drug and provides the amounts to the State on a quarterly basis. The Department is required to maintain drug utilization data that identifies, by National Drug Code (NDC), the number of units of each covered outpatient drug for which the Department has paid pharmacy providers. The utilization data is provided to CMS and the manufacturers. The number of dispensed units is applied to the URA to determine the rebate amount due from each manufacturer. The State contracts with a vendor to calculate the drug rebate amounts and invoice manufacturers for drug rebates. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) identified that the Department does not have procedures in place to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the drug rebate amounts invoiced by the vendor. Though the Department validates that only rebatable drugs are invoiced and all rebatable drugs are included for invoicing, this review is performed after the invoicing cycle. In addition, the Department does not compare drug utilization data to the number of dispensed units invoiced, or corroborate that the correct URA is applied to each NDC to ensure that the vendor has calculated the rebate correctly. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the State invoiced approximately $300 million for rebatable drugs and received approximately $216 million in rebates. Of the $216 million in rebates, approximately $144 million was returned to the Federal government. Due to the amount of time rebate negotiations may take, discrepancies will exist between the invoiced total and the total amount of rebates received. Cause: • Lack of adequate procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Inaccurate or incomplete invoicing of drug rebates would result in overpayments or underpayments to the State and Federal government. • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement procedures to confirm the drug rebate amounts calculated and invoiced by the vendor are accurate and complete, including: • validating that only rebatable drugs are invoiced and all rebatable drugs are included for invoicing; • comparing drug utilization data to the number of dispensed units invoiced; and • corroborating the correct URA is applied to each NDC. This will ensure that correct drug rebate amounts are returned to the State and Federal government. Corrective Action Plan: See F-28 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. PRIMS (Pharmacy Rebate Information Management System), provided to the State of Maine by a third-party vendor, is a proven system in production in many locations and PRIMS has passed a wide variety of Federal and State audits. The drug rebate program is complex and there are numerous steps in the process which have already been demonstrated and/or provided to the Office of State Auditor. The controls described to the State Auditor previously (Pre-invoicing controls, pharmacy claims controls and medical claims controls) address all three of the Auditors’ Recommendations. Contact: Michelle Probert, Director, Office of MaineCare Services, DHHS, 207-287-2093 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: 2 CFR 200.303 requires the State to establish and maintain effective internal controls. The Department’s Management Response stating that the vendor’s drug rebate information system “is a proven system in production in many locations” that “has passed a wide variety of Federal and State audits” only further validates that the Department is fully relying on the vendor to ensure the accuracy and completeness of drug rebate invoices. As stated in Management’s Response “the drug rebate program is complex” which further emphasizes the need for proper oversight. Existing reliance on the vendor demonstrates that the Department does not have adequate oversight procedures in place. In addition, the Department asserts controls are in place to address OSA’s Recommendation; however, the controls referenced in Management’s Response do not adequately address the risk associated with the issues noted in the Condition. The pre-invoicing controls referenced by the Department are performed at a summary level and the pharmacy and medical claims controls are not directly tied to the drug rebate invoicing process. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1106-07)

(2024-070) Title: Internal control over Medicaid drug rebates needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office of MaineCare Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; Section 1927 of the Social Security Act (42 USC 1396r-8) The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Section 1927 of the Social Security Act requires manufacturers that wish to have their outpatient drugs covered by Medicaid to enter into an agreement with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) under which the manufacturers agree to pay rebates for drugs dispensed and paid for by the State Medicaid agencies under the State plan. Drug rebates are shared between the State and Federal government. Condition: Drug manufacturers are required to submit a list of all covered outpatient drugs, along with each drug’s average manufacturer price and “best price” to CMS. Utilizing this information, CMS calculates a unit rebate amount (URA) for each covered outpatient drug and provides the amounts to the State on a quarterly basis. The Department is required to maintain drug utilization data that identifies, by National Drug Code (NDC), the number of units of each covered outpatient drug for which the Department has paid pharmacy providers. The utilization data is provided to CMS and the manufacturers. The number of dispensed units is applied to the URA to determine the rebate amount due from each manufacturer. The State contracts with a vendor to calculate the drug rebate amounts and invoice manufacturers for drug rebates. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) identified that the Department does not have procedures in place to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the drug rebate amounts invoiced by the vendor. Though the Department validates that only rebatable drugs are invoiced and all rebatable drugs are included for invoicing, this review is performed after the invoicing cycle. In addition, the Department does not compare drug utilization data to the number of dispensed units invoiced, or corroborate that the correct URA is applied to each NDC to ensure that the vendor has calculated the rebate correctly. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the State invoiced approximately $300 million for rebatable drugs and received approximately $216 million in rebates. Of the $216 million in rebates, approximately $144 million was returned to the Federal government. Due to the amount of time rebate negotiations may take, discrepancies will exist between the invoiced total and the total amount of rebates received. Cause: • Lack of adequate procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Inaccurate or incomplete invoicing of drug rebates would result in overpayments or underpayments to the State and Federal government. • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement procedures to confirm the drug rebate amounts calculated and invoiced by the vendor are accurate and complete, including: • validating that only rebatable drugs are invoiced and all rebatable drugs are included for invoicing; • comparing drug utilization data to the number of dispensed units invoiced; and • corroborating the correct URA is applied to each NDC. This will ensure that correct drug rebate amounts are returned to the State and Federal government. Corrective Action Plan: See F-28 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. PRIMS (Pharmacy Rebate Information Management System), provided to the State of Maine by a third-party vendor, is a proven system in production in many locations and PRIMS has passed a wide variety of Federal and State audits. The drug rebate program is complex and there are numerous steps in the process which have already been demonstrated and/or provided to the Office of State Auditor. The controls described to the State Auditor previously (Pre-invoicing controls, pharmacy claims controls and medical claims controls) address all three of the Auditors’ Recommendations. Contact: Michelle Probert, Director, Office of MaineCare Services, DHHS, 207-287-2093 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: 2 CFR 200.303 requires the State to establish and maintain effective internal controls. The Department’s Management Response stating that the vendor’s drug rebate information system “is a proven system in production in many locations” that “has passed a wide variety of Federal and State audits” only further validates that the Department is fully relying on the vendor to ensure the accuracy and completeness of drug rebate invoices. As stated in Management’s Response “the drug rebate program is complex” which further emphasizes the need for proper oversight. Existing reliance on the vendor demonstrates that the Department does not have adequate oversight procedures in place. In addition, the Department asserts controls are in place to address OSA’s Recommendation; however, the controls referenced in Management’s Response do not adequately address the risk associated with the issues noted in the Condition. The pre-invoicing controls referenced by the Department are performed at a summary level and the pharmacy and medical claims controls are not directly tied to the drug rebate invoicing process. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1106-07)

(2024-071) Title: Internal control over Medicaid paid medical claims needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office of MaineCare Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; MaineCare Benefits Manual, Chapter 101, Section 90 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. The MaineCare Benefits Manual states that the Medicaid program will reimburse at the lowest applicable rate for covered physician services. Condition: The Department’s Office of MaineCare Services (OMS) is billed by medical providers for services provided to Medicaid members. Provider reimbursement rates for certain medical services increased January 1, 2024; however, providers continued to bill OMS utilizing outdated rates until a retroactive adjustment was processed by OMS in March 2024 for certain medical services reimbursed in January and February. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 paid medical claims and identified one claim that was reimbursed at a higher than authorized rate. As a result, OMS overpaid the provider by $5. To determine the pervasiveness of the error, OSA reviewed all claims for the same medical service paid between January 1 and the March 2024 retroactive adjustment and found 510 claims that were never retroactively adjusted. A total of $3,300 was identified as overpaid to providers. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, $2.2 billion was paid to providers for medical claims. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate procedures to ensure all medical claims are paid correctly Effect: • Inaccurate paid claims resulted in overpayments and may also result in underpayments to providers. • Potential questioned costs and disallowances Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance oversight procedures to ensure that authorized provider reimbursement rates are utilized, and any retroactive adjustments are applied to all affected paid claims accurately and completely. This will ensure that Medicaid claims are not overpaid or underpaid to providers. Corrective Action Plan: See F-29 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. OMS has determined that there is an issue with the manual intervention taken by the third-party vendor to prepare this report. This caused some claims that required adjustment to be excluded from the report. Through discussion with the vendor, OMS has determined that the vendor does not have a standardized procedure to prepare this report for OMS. Maine will require the vendor to prepare a Desk Level Procedure (DLP) for the preparation of this report. This DLP will be reviewed by the State and the report will go through testing and validation, as necessary, before the report is used again. Contact: Michelle Probert, Director, Office of MaineCare Services, DHHS, 207-287-2093 (State Number: 24-1106-06)

(2024-071) Title: Internal control over Medicaid paid medical claims needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office of MaineCare Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; MaineCare Benefits Manual, Chapter 101, Section 90 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. The MaineCare Benefits Manual states that the Medicaid program will reimburse at the lowest applicable rate for covered physician services. Condition: The Department’s Office of MaineCare Services (OMS) is billed by medical providers for services provided to Medicaid members. Provider reimbursement rates for certain medical services increased January 1, 2024; however, providers continued to bill OMS utilizing outdated rates until a retroactive adjustment was processed by OMS in March 2024 for certain medical services reimbursed in January and February. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 paid medical claims and identified one claim that was reimbursed at a higher than authorized rate. As a result, OMS overpaid the provider by $5. To determine the pervasiveness of the error, OSA reviewed all claims for the same medical service paid between January 1 and the March 2024 retroactive adjustment and found 510 claims that were never retroactively adjusted. A total of $3,300 was identified as overpaid to providers. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, $2.2 billion was paid to providers for medical claims. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate procedures to ensure all medical claims are paid correctly Effect: • Inaccurate paid claims resulted in overpayments and may also result in underpayments to providers. • Potential questioned costs and disallowances Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance oversight procedures to ensure that authorized provider reimbursement rates are utilized, and any retroactive adjustments are applied to all affected paid claims accurately and completely. This will ensure that Medicaid claims are not overpaid or underpaid to providers. Corrective Action Plan: See F-29 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. OMS has determined that there is an issue with the manual intervention taken by the third-party vendor to prepare this report. This caused some claims that required adjustment to be excluded from the report. Through discussion with the vendor, OMS has determined that the vendor does not have a standardized procedure to prepare this report for OMS. Maine will require the vendor to prepare a Desk Level Procedure (DLP) for the preparation of this report. This DLP will be reviewed by the State and the report will go through testing and validation, as necessary, before the report is used again. Contact: Michelle Probert, Director, Office of MaineCare Services, DHHS, 207-287-2093 (State Number: 24-1106-06)

(2024-071) Title: Internal control over Medicaid paid medical claims needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office of MaineCare Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; MaineCare Benefits Manual, Chapter 101, Section 90 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. The MaineCare Benefits Manual states that the Medicaid program will reimburse at the lowest applicable rate for covered physician services. Condition: The Department’s Office of MaineCare Services (OMS) is billed by medical providers for services provided to Medicaid members. Provider reimbursement rates for certain medical services increased January 1, 2024; however, providers continued to bill OMS utilizing outdated rates until a retroactive adjustment was processed by OMS in March 2024 for certain medical services reimbursed in January and February. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 paid medical claims and identified one claim that was reimbursed at a higher than authorized rate. As a result, OMS overpaid the provider by $5. To determine the pervasiveness of the error, OSA reviewed all claims for the same medical service paid between January 1 and the March 2024 retroactive adjustment and found 510 claims that were never retroactively adjusted. A total of $3,300 was identified as overpaid to providers. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, $2.2 billion was paid to providers for medical claims. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate procedures to ensure all medical claims are paid correctly Effect: • Inaccurate paid claims resulted in overpayments and may also result in underpayments to providers. • Potential questioned costs and disallowances Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance oversight procedures to ensure that authorized provider reimbursement rates are utilized, and any retroactive adjustments are applied to all affected paid claims accurately and completely. This will ensure that Medicaid claims are not overpaid or underpaid to providers. Corrective Action Plan: See F-29 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. OMS has determined that there is an issue with the manual intervention taken by the third-party vendor to prepare this report. This caused some claims that required adjustment to be excluded from the report. Through discussion with the vendor, OMS has determined that the vendor does not have a standardized procedure to prepare this report for OMS. Maine will require the vendor to prepare a Desk Level Procedure (DLP) for the preparation of this report. This DLP will be reviewed by the State and the report will go through testing and validation, as necessary, before the report is used again. Contact: Michelle Probert, Director, Office of MaineCare Services, DHHS, 207-287-2093 (State Number: 24-1106-06)

(2024-071) Title: Internal control over Medicaid paid medical claims needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office of MaineCare Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; MaineCare Benefits Manual, Chapter 101, Section 90 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. The MaineCare Benefits Manual states that the Medicaid program will reimburse at the lowest applicable rate for covered physician services. Condition: The Department’s Office of MaineCare Services (OMS) is billed by medical providers for services provided to Medicaid members. Provider reimbursement rates for certain medical services increased January 1, 2024; however, providers continued to bill OMS utilizing outdated rates until a retroactive adjustment was processed by OMS in March 2024 for certain medical services reimbursed in January and February. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 paid medical claims and identified one claim that was reimbursed at a higher than authorized rate. As a result, OMS overpaid the provider by $5. To determine the pervasiveness of the error, OSA reviewed all claims for the same medical service paid between January 1 and the March 2024 retroactive adjustment and found 510 claims that were never retroactively adjusted. A total of $3,300 was identified as overpaid to providers. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, $2.2 billion was paid to providers for medical claims. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate procedures to ensure all medical claims are paid correctly Effect: • Inaccurate paid claims resulted in overpayments and may also result in underpayments to providers. • Potential questioned costs and disallowances Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance oversight procedures to ensure that authorized provider reimbursement rates are utilized, and any retroactive adjustments are applied to all affected paid claims accurately and completely. This will ensure that Medicaid claims are not overpaid or underpaid to providers. Corrective Action Plan: See F-29 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. OMS has determined that there is an issue with the manual intervention taken by the third-party vendor to prepare this report. This caused some claims that required adjustment to be excluded from the report. Through discussion with the vendor, OMS has determined that the vendor does not have a standardized procedure to prepare this report for OMS. Maine will require the vendor to prepare a Desk Level Procedure (DLP) for the preparation of this report. This DLP will be reviewed by the State and the report will go through testing and validation, as necessary, before the report is used again. Contact: Michelle Probert, Director, Office of MaineCare Services, DHHS, 207-287-2093 (State Number: 24-1106-06)

(2024-072) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: None Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-29 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0902-04)

(2024-072) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: None Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-29 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0902-04)

(2024-072) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: None Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-29 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0902-04)

(2024-072) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: None Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-29 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0902-04)

(2024-073) Title: Internal control over DG – PA program special reporting needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Defense, Veterans and Emergency Management State Bureau: Maine Emergency Management Agency Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Assistance Listing Title: Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 97.036 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 170 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Agencies must report each subaward that equals or exceeds the first-tier subaward threshold of $30,000 in Federal funds in the public-facing Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) Subawards Reporting System (FSRS). Condition: When an amount exceeding the first-tier subaward threshold is awarded to a subrecipient of the Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (DG – PA) program, Maine Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) must collect and enter data into FSRS. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 33 DG – PA subawards totaling $8,864,828 that exceeded the first-tier subaward threshold. Federal regulations require the following information for identified noncompliance to be included in FFATA findings: • two subawards totaling $364,133 were not reported; • 27 subawards totaling $8,246,776 were not reported timely; • no subaward amounts were reported incorrectly; and • 21 subawards reported incorrect key data elements. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, MEMA was required to report 280 first-tier subawards totaling approximately $57 million under the DG – PA program. First-tier subawards account for 83 percent of the program’s fiscal year 2024 expenditures. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of resources Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Accurate first-tier subaward information for the DG – PA program was not reported to the Federal government timely and included inaccurate or incomplete information. This information may be used for programmatic, policy, or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance policies and procedures to ensure that first-tier subawards are reported accurately, timely, and in accordance with Federal regulations. Corrective Action Plan: See F-29 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. MEMA’s procedure for Federal Financial Reporting already includes a standardized workbook template to compile Federal and State financial data for each grant award and facilitate accurate completion of the SF-425 form. The workbook is prepared by one MEMA staff member, and the resulting draft SF-425 form is reviewed by another MEMA staff member prior to finalization and signature by MEMA’s Authorized Representative. MEMA engaged with Federal funding partners in FY2024 to understand the appropriate data validation processes for financial reporting within the Public Assistance Grants Portal and Payment Management System (PMS), including participation in a training workshop and receiving data validation feedback from reviewers at the Federal level. These reporting process refinements will be reflected in updates to the existing SOP, and an additional review tab will be incorporated into the existing SF-425 preparatory workbooks to document review and data validation steps in detail. Contact: Sunny Cyr, Business Office Director, MEMA, DVEM, 207-707-2507 (State Number: 24-1502-03)

(2024-073) Title: Internal control over DG – PA program special reporting needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Defense, Veterans and Emergency Management State Bureau: Maine Emergency Management Agency Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Assistance Listing Title: Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 97.036 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 170 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Agencies must report each subaward that equals or exceeds the first-tier subaward threshold of $30,000 in Federal funds in the public-facing Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) Subawards Reporting System (FSRS). Condition: When an amount exceeding the first-tier subaward threshold is awarded to a subrecipient of the Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (DG – PA) program, Maine Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) must collect and enter data into FSRS. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 33 DG – PA subawards totaling $8,864,828 that exceeded the first-tier subaward threshold. Federal regulations require the following information for identified noncompliance to be included in FFATA findings: • two subawards totaling $364,133 were not reported; • 27 subawards totaling $8,246,776 were not reported timely; • no subaward amounts were reported incorrectly; and • 21 subawards reported incorrect key data elements. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, MEMA was required to report 280 first-tier subawards totaling approximately $57 million under the DG – PA program. First-tier subawards account for 83 percent of the program’s fiscal year 2024 expenditures. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of resources Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Accurate first-tier subaward information for the DG – PA program was not reported to the Federal government timely and included inaccurate or incomplete information. This information may be used for programmatic, policy, or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance policies and procedures to ensure that first-tier subawards are reported accurately, timely, and in accordance with Federal regulations. Corrective Action Plan: See F-29 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. MEMA’s procedure for Federal Financial Reporting already includes a standardized workbook template to compile Federal and State financial data for each grant award and facilitate accurate completion of the SF-425 form. The workbook is prepared by one MEMA staff member, and the resulting draft SF-425 form is reviewed by another MEMA staff member prior to finalization and signature by MEMA’s Authorized Representative. MEMA engaged with Federal funding partners in FY2024 to understand the appropriate data validation processes for financial reporting within the Public Assistance Grants Portal and Payment Management System (PMS), including participation in a training workshop and receiving data validation feedback from reviewers at the Federal level. These reporting process refinements will be reflected in updates to the existing SOP, and an additional review tab will be incorporated into the existing SF-425 preparatory workbooks to document review and data validation steps in detail. Contact: Sunny Cyr, Business Office Director, MEMA, DVEM, 207-707-2507 (State Number: 24-1502-03)

(2024-074) Title: Internal control over DG – PA program cash management needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Defense, Veterans and Emergency Management Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Maine Emergency Management Agency Security and Employment Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Assistance Listing Title: Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 97.036 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Cash management Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 31 CFR 205(A); 2024 Treasury-State Agreement (Maine) The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. A Treasury-State Agreement (TSA) documents the accepted funding techniques and methods for calculating interest agreed upon by the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the State. The funding technique agreed upon in the State’s TSA for the Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (DG – PA) program is the “actual drawdown – weekly” method. This method specifies that the State shall make weekly drawdowns based on actual expenditures which occurred in the past weekly period. Condition: The Maine Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) administers the DG – PA program for the State. The Department of Administrative and Financial Services’ Security and Employment Service Center (SESC) is responsible for requesting drawdowns of Federal funds in order to pay DG – PA program expenditures on behalf of MEMA. MEMA reviews, authorizes, and submits approved invoices to SESC for payment. SESC then requests Federal funds based on the approved invoices and processes the authorized payment once Federal funds are received. SESC completed 69 Federal grant drawdowns for the DG – PA program in fiscal year 2024, which is not consistent with the TSA requirements that only allow for weekly drawdowns. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) performed analytical procedures and identified a drawdown that was drawn in advance of actual disbursement. OSA reviewed additional drawdowns and identified other drawdowns during fiscal year 2024 that were also drawn in advance of actual disbursement. This process is not consistent with TSA requirements. As a result, MEMA had excess cash on hand during fiscal year 2024 and is not in compliance with cash management requirements. Context: In fiscal year 2024, there were 69 Federal grant drawdowns totaling approximately $69 million for the DG – PA program. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • The Federal government may improve more stringent program-specific cash management requirements based on noncompliance. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the funding techniques specified in the TSA when requesting Federal funds. Corrective Action Plan: See F-29 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. Corrective action was already implemented mid-way through State Fiscal Year 2024 as polices and procedures were updated, and a weekly draw process has been since been used. The Security and Employment Service Center began reconciling draw requests as part of these updated procedures. A majority of the cash on hand was due to contract modifications as the cash was drawn but the payments could not be made until the contract modifications were completed in the accounting system. MEMA made subsequent updates to the cash management process to avoid drawing for payments that might be impacted by unanticipated delays in the final two weeks of each quarter. In addition, the department discussed modifying the Treasury-State Agreement (TSA) with the Office of the State Treasurer. The 2025 TSA lists a Weekly Drawdown - Actual & Estimate funding technique for this major program as some of these payments are too substantial for the State to process and have to wait for reimbursement. Contact: Sunny Cyr, Business Office Director, MEMA, DVEM, 207-707-2507 (State Number: 24-1502-04)

(2024-074) Title: Internal control over DG – PA program cash management needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Defense, Veterans and Emergency Management Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Maine Emergency Management Agency Security and Employment Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Assistance Listing Title: Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 97.036 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Cash management Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 31 CFR 205(A); 2024 Treasury-State Agreement (Maine) The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. A Treasury-State Agreement (TSA) documents the accepted funding techniques and methods for calculating interest agreed upon by the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the State. The funding technique agreed upon in the State’s TSA for the Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (DG – PA) program is the “actual drawdown – weekly” method. This method specifies that the State shall make weekly drawdowns based on actual expenditures which occurred in the past weekly period. Condition: The Maine Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) administers the DG – PA program for the State. The Department of Administrative and Financial Services’ Security and Employment Service Center (SESC) is responsible for requesting drawdowns of Federal funds in order to pay DG – PA program expenditures on behalf of MEMA. MEMA reviews, authorizes, and submits approved invoices to SESC for payment. SESC then requests Federal funds based on the approved invoices and processes the authorized payment once Federal funds are received. SESC completed 69 Federal grant drawdowns for the DG – PA program in fiscal year 2024, which is not consistent with the TSA requirements that only allow for weekly drawdowns. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) performed analytical procedures and identified a drawdown that was drawn in advance of actual disbursement. OSA reviewed additional drawdowns and identified other drawdowns during fiscal year 2024 that were also drawn in advance of actual disbursement. This process is not consistent with TSA requirements. As a result, MEMA had excess cash on hand during fiscal year 2024 and is not in compliance with cash management requirements. Context: In fiscal year 2024, there were 69 Federal grant drawdowns totaling approximately $69 million for the DG – PA program. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • The Federal government may improve more stringent program-specific cash management requirements based on noncompliance. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the funding techniques specified in the TSA when requesting Federal funds. Corrective Action Plan: See F-29 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. Corrective action was already implemented mid-way through State Fiscal Year 2024 as polices and procedures were updated, and a weekly draw process has been since been used. The Security and Employment Service Center began reconciling draw requests as part of these updated procedures. A majority of the cash on hand was due to contract modifications as the cash was drawn but the payments could not be made until the contract modifications were completed in the accounting system. MEMA made subsequent updates to the cash management process to avoid drawing for payments that might be impacted by unanticipated delays in the final two weeks of each quarter. In addition, the department discussed modifying the Treasury-State Agreement (TSA) with the Office of the State Treasurer. The 2025 TSA lists a Weekly Drawdown - Actual & Estimate funding technique for this major program as some of these payments are too substantial for the State to process and have to wait for reimbursement. Contact: Sunny Cyr, Business Office Director, MEMA, DVEM, 207-707-2507 (State Number: 24-1502-04)

(2024-075) Title: Internal control over DG – PA program financial reporting needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Defense, Veterans and Emergency Management State Bureau: Maine Emergency Management Agency Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Assistance Listing Title: Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 97.036 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.302 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must maintain accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with reporting requirements. Condition: The Maine Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) administers the Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (DG – PA) program for the State. MEMA is required to submit quarterly DG – PA Federal Financial Reports (FFRs) to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Regional Office. FFRs provide FEMA with the status of funds for the award, Federal expenditures, and cost-sharing requirements. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested four FFRs due in fiscal year 2024 and found: • one FFR inaccurately reported total Federal funds authorized as $889,510 when the correct total was $617,318; • one FFR inaccurately reported the recipient share of expenditures as $712,412 when the correct share was $159,382; and • one FFR inaccurately reported total Federal funds authorized as $640,654 when the correct total was $1,469,390, and the recipient share of expenditures as $842,604 when the correct share was $434,484. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: During fiscal year 2024, 33 FFRs were required to be filed by MEMA for the DG – PA program. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures to ensure data used for financial reporting is complete and accurate • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal reporting requirements • Inaccurate tracking of subawards may result in noncompliance with Federal matching requirements. Recommendation: We recommend that MEMA enhance policies and procedures to ensure that FFRs are accurate and include all required information for compliance with Federal reporting requirements. Corrective Action Plan: See F-30 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. Corrective action was implemented at the end of State Fiscal Year 2024. Untimely reports were primarily due to a backlog of required reporting that was brought up to date over the fiscal year as a corrective action to the prior year finding. In the current monthly reporting process, award data is provided by grant program experts to avoid incorrect data elements, and reporting is reviewed for completeness by a staff member not involved in report submission. In the third quarter of FY2025, the FFATA reporting system was retired from FSRS.gov and transferred to SAM.gov, further minimizing the possibility of incorrect data elements being reported. MEMA will update the existing SOP for FFATA reporting to address specifics related to the new reporting process within SAM.gov Contact: Sunny Cyr, Business Office Director, MEMA, DVEM, 207-707-2507 (State Number: 24-1502-02)

(2024-075) Title: Internal control over DG – PA program financial reporting needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Defense, Veterans and Emergency Management State Bureau: Maine Emergency Management Agency Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Assistance Listing Title: Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 97.036 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.302 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must maintain accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with reporting requirements. Condition: The Maine Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) administers the Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (DG – PA) program for the State. MEMA is required to submit quarterly DG – PA Federal Financial Reports (FFRs) to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Regional Office. FFRs provide FEMA with the status of funds for the award, Federal expenditures, and cost-sharing requirements. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested four FFRs due in fiscal year 2024 and found: • one FFR inaccurately reported total Federal funds authorized as $889,510 when the correct total was $617,318; • one FFR inaccurately reported the recipient share of expenditures as $712,412 when the correct share was $159,382; and • one FFR inaccurately reported total Federal funds authorized as $640,654 when the correct total was $1,469,390, and the recipient share of expenditures as $842,604 when the correct share was $434,484. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: During fiscal year 2024, 33 FFRs were required to be filed by MEMA for the DG – PA program. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures to ensure data used for financial reporting is complete and accurate • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal reporting requirements • Inaccurate tracking of subawards may result in noncompliance with Federal matching requirements. Recommendation: We recommend that MEMA enhance policies and procedures to ensure that FFRs are accurate and include all required information for compliance with Federal reporting requirements. Corrective Action Plan: See F-30 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. Corrective action was implemented at the end of State Fiscal Year 2024. Untimely reports were primarily due to a backlog of required reporting that was brought up to date over the fiscal year as a corrective action to the prior year finding. In the current monthly reporting process, award data is provided by grant program experts to avoid incorrect data elements, and reporting is reviewed for completeness by a staff member not involved in report submission. In the third quarter of FY2025, the FFATA reporting system was retired from FSRS.gov and transferred to SAM.gov, further minimizing the possibility of incorrect data elements being reported. MEMA will update the existing SOP for FFATA reporting to address specifics related to the new reporting process within SAM.gov Contact: Sunny Cyr, Business Office Director, MEMA, DVEM, 207-707-2507 (State Number: 24-1502-02)

(2024-076) Title: Internal control over the submission of DG – PA program Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards information needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Defense, Veterans and Emergency Management State Bureau: Maine Emergency Management Agency Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Assistance Listing Title: Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 97.036 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.510 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must prepare a Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for the period covered by the State’s financial statements which must include the total Federal awards expended. At a minimum, the SEFA must include the total amount provided to subrecipients from each Federal program. Condition: The Maine Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) must complete and submit exhibits and related schedules to the Office of the State Controller (OSC) at the close of each fiscal year to report Federal award information for inclusion on the State’s SEFA. OSC is responsible for compiling this information on behalf of the State. MEMA submitted schedules to OSC that incorrectly reported $91,471 of expenditures under ALN 97.050 Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households – Other Needs that should have been reported under ALN 97.036 Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (DG – PA) (Presidentially Declared Disasters). MEMA procedures do not require review of schedules prior to submission to OSC. Context: In fiscal year 2024, DG – PA expenditures totaled approximately $68 million. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: Inaccurate reporting of expenditure amounts on the SEFA, which is submitted to the Federal government, may result in incorrect information used for programmatic, policy, or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that MEMA implement policies and procedures that require a comprehensive review of SEFA schedules prior to submission to OSC. Corrective Action Plan: See F-30 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. MEMA will work with Defense, Veterans and Emergency Management staff to develop an agency-specific procedure for comprehensive review of the agency’s Federal expenditures at an appropriate point in the department’s annual SEFA reporting process. Contact: Sunny Cyr, Business Office Director, MEMA, DVEM, 207-707-2507 (State Number: 24-1502-01)

(2024-076) Title: Internal control over the submission of DG – PA program Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards information needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Defense, Veterans and Emergency Management State Bureau: Maine Emergency Management Agency Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Assistance Listing Title: Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 97.036 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.510 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must prepare a Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for the period covered by the State’s financial statements which must include the total Federal awards expended. At a minimum, the SEFA must include the total amount provided to subrecipients from each Federal program. Condition: The Maine Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) must complete and submit exhibits and related schedules to the Office of the State Controller (OSC) at the close of each fiscal year to report Federal award information for inclusion on the State’s SEFA. OSC is responsible for compiling this information on behalf of the State. MEMA submitted schedules to OSC that incorrectly reported $91,471 of expenditures under ALN 97.050 Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households – Other Needs that should have been reported under ALN 97.036 Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (DG – PA) (Presidentially Declared Disasters). MEMA procedures do not require review of schedules prior to submission to OSC. Context: In fiscal year 2024, DG – PA expenditures totaled approximately $68 million. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: Inaccurate reporting of expenditure amounts on the SEFA, which is submitted to the Federal government, may result in incorrect information used for programmatic, policy, or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that MEMA implement policies and procedures that require a comprehensive review of SEFA schedules prior to submission to OSC. Corrective Action Plan: See F-30 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. MEMA will work with Defense, Veterans and Emergency Management staff to develop an agency-specific procedure for comprehensive review of the agency’s Federal expenditures at an appropriate point in the department’s annual SEFA reporting process. Contact: Sunny Cyr, Business Office Director, MEMA, DVEM, 207-707-2507 (State Number: 24-1502-01)

(2024-016) Title: Internal control over Unemployment Insurance financial reporting needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Labor Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Unemployment Compensation Security and Employment Service Center Office of the State Controller Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Labor Assistance Listing Title: Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 17.225 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.510; Governmental Accounting, Auditing, and Financial Reporting (GAAFR), Part 5, Section A: Internal Control; State Administrative and Accounting Manual (SAAM) Chapter 80 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must prepare a Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for the period covered by the State’s financial statements which must include the total Federal awards expended. At a minimum, the SEFA must provide total Federal awards expended for each individual Federal program. The GAAFR states that a comprehensive framework of internal control is required to obtain reasonable assurance over financial reporting. The Office of the State Controller (OSC) has the responsibility to develop and maintain a system of internal controls and procedures to check the accuracy and reliability of its accounting data, promote operational efficiency, and encourage adherence to prescribed managerial policies for accounting and financial controls. Condition: The Security and Employment Service Center (SESC) is responsible for recording accounting transactions and reconciling balances between Federal funds and the State-funded Unemployment Insurance (UI) program under the Employment Security Fund (ESF). SESC is required to periodically record transfers of revenues and expenditures between Federal and State funds, which are separately presented in the State’s financial statements, but combined for SEFA reporting purposes. OSC compiles information collected from SESC in year-end closing packages for financial and SEFA reporting purposes. The Office of the State Auditor’s (OSA) audit of year-end account balances and related SEFA reporting identified a deposit of $11.6 million, representing a transfer between Federal and State UI funds, that was not accurately recorded. This resulted in the following errors: • ESF Cash & Short-Term Investments was overstated by $11.6 million, and Restricted Deposits & Investments was understated by $11.6 million on the State’s financial statements. • SEFA expenditures were overstated by $11.6 million. OSA proposed an audit adjustment to reclassify and correct the balances on the State’s financial statements and SEFA. The adjustment was recorded by OSC. Context: Before OSA’s proposed audit adjustment: • ESF Cash & Short-Term Investments and Restricted Deposits & Investments totaled $13 million and $735.2 million, respectively. • SEFA expenditures for the UI program totaled $150.7 million. Cause: Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: Before OSC corrected year-end account balances and related SEFA reporting: • ESF asset balances on the State’s financial statements were misclassified. • total expenditures reported on the SEFA were inaccurate. The SEFA is submitted to the Federal government, and errors in reporting may result in incorrect information used for programmatic, policy, or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that SESC and OSC enhance supervisory oversight to ensure that balances reported on the State’s financial statements and SEFA are accurate. Corrective Action Plan: See F-11 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The department will further expand the procedures used to prepare and review the SEFA. Contact: Marilyn Leimbach, Director, Security and Employment Service Center, DFPS, DAFS, 207-248-2556 (State Number: 24-0308-02)

(2024-016) Title: Internal control over Unemployment Insurance financial reporting needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Labor Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Unemployment Compensation Security and Employment Service Center Office of the State Controller Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Labor Assistance Listing Title: Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 17.225 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.510; Governmental Accounting, Auditing, and Financial Reporting (GAAFR), Part 5, Section A: Internal Control; State Administrative and Accounting Manual (SAAM) Chapter 80 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must prepare a Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for the period covered by the State’s financial statements which must include the total Federal awards expended. At a minimum, the SEFA must provide total Federal awards expended for each individual Federal program. The GAAFR states that a comprehensive framework of internal control is required to obtain reasonable assurance over financial reporting. The Office of the State Controller (OSC) has the responsibility to develop and maintain a system of internal controls and procedures to check the accuracy and reliability of its accounting data, promote operational efficiency, and encourage adherence to prescribed managerial policies for accounting and financial controls. Condition: The Security and Employment Service Center (SESC) is responsible for recording accounting transactions and reconciling balances between Federal funds and the State-funded Unemployment Insurance (UI) program under the Employment Security Fund (ESF). SESC is required to periodically record transfers of revenues and expenditures between Federal and State funds, which are separately presented in the State’s financial statements, but combined for SEFA reporting purposes. OSC compiles information collected from SESC in year-end closing packages for financial and SEFA reporting purposes. The Office of the State Auditor’s (OSA) audit of year-end account balances and related SEFA reporting identified a deposit of $11.6 million, representing a transfer between Federal and State UI funds, that was not accurately recorded. This resulted in the following errors: • ESF Cash & Short-Term Investments was overstated by $11.6 million, and Restricted Deposits & Investments was understated by $11.6 million on the State’s financial statements. • SEFA expenditures were overstated by $11.6 million. OSA proposed an audit adjustment to reclassify and correct the balances on the State’s financial statements and SEFA. The adjustment was recorded by OSC. Context: Before OSA’s proposed audit adjustment: • ESF Cash & Short-Term Investments and Restricted Deposits & Investments totaled $13 million and $735.2 million, respectively. • SEFA expenditures for the UI program totaled $150.7 million. Cause: Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: Before OSC corrected year-end account balances and related SEFA reporting: • ESF asset balances on the State’s financial statements were misclassified. • total expenditures reported on the SEFA were inaccurate. The SEFA is submitted to the Federal government, and errors in reporting may result in incorrect information used for programmatic, policy, or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that SESC and OSC enhance supervisory oversight to ensure that balances reported on the State’s financial statements and SEFA are accurate. Corrective Action Plan: See F-11 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The department will further expand the procedures used to prepare and review the SEFA. Contact: Marilyn Leimbach, Director, Security and Employment Service Center, DFPS, DAFS, 207-248-2556 (State Number: 24-0308-02)

(2024-017) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0900-02)

(2024-017) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0900-02)

(2024-017) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0900-02)

(2024-017) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0900-02)

(2024-018) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: None Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0900-03)

(2024-018) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: None Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0900-03)

(2024-018) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: None Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0900-03)

(2024-018) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: None Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0900-03)

(2024-019) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: None Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0902-01)

(2024-019) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: None Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0902-01)

(2024-019) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: None Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0902-01)

(2024-019) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: None Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0902-01)

(2024-020) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirely Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0909-01)

(2024-020) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirely Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0909-01)

(2024-020) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirely Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0909-01)

(2024-020) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirely Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0909-01)

(2024-020) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirely Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0909-01)

(2024-020) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirely Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0909-01)

(2024-020) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirely Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0909-01)

(2024-020) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirely Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0909-01)

(2024-020) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirely Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0909-01)

(2024-020) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirely Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0909-01)

(2024-020) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-12 Contact: Shirely Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0909-01)

(2024-021) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: None Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-13 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0904-01)

(2024-021) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: None Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-13 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0904-01)

(2024-021) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: None Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-13 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0904-01)

(2024-021) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: None Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-13 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0904-01)

(2024-022) Title: Internal control over SNAP eligibility determinations and benefit calculations needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: SNAP Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.551, 10.561 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Eligibility Special tests and provisions Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 10.551 $12,335 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; incorrectly calculated Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits may result in overpayments or underpayments to clients. Since there are known overpayments and underpayments in our sample, a projection of questioned costs cannot be reasonably estimated. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 7 CFR 272.10; 7 CFR 273.2 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. All State agencies must sufficiently automate their SNAP operations and computerize their systems for obtaining, maintaining, utilizing and transmitting information concerning SNAP. A SNAP application form must be signed to establish a filing date and to determine the State agency’s deadline for acting on the form. The State agency shall not certify a household without a signed form. Condition: SNAP is administered by the Office for Family Independence (OFI) and provides monthly benefits to eligible households to purchase nutritious foods. OFI is required by Federal program regulations to utilize an automated information system for SNAP. The information system must maintain all case file information necessary to properly process eligibility determinations and benefit calculations. The Automated Client Eligibility System (ACES) is the information system used by OFI to automate SNAP operations. ACES relies on the maintenance of a complex framework of system results to make eligibility determinations and related benefit calculations. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 household monthly benefit payments to verify the accuracy of SNAP operations utilizing ACES, and identified the following: • Nine overpayments of monthly SNAP benefits, including: o four benefit overpayments totaling $5,806; the Department was unable to provide documentation to support the maximum income limit requirement. o two benefit overpayments totaling $2,714 where the clients’ application for benefit renewal did not include SNAP; however, the households were open to SNAP benefits. o two benefit overpayments totaling $2,349 due to manual processing errors. o one benefit overpayment totaling $1,041; the client’s signature on their application was missing, which makes them ineligible for SNAP benefits. • One $395 underpayment of a monthly SNAP benefit due to manual processing errors • One household with an overpayment of $425 and an underpayment of $69 due to manual processing errors • Three households received accurate monthly benefit payments; however, asset and expense information were not accurately reflected within ACES. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. The Department does not have adequate policies and procedures in place to ensure that ACES case file modifications, whether manual or system interfaced, that result in adjustments to previously issued monthly SNAP benefits are appropriately processed. This includes a recalculation of previously issued benefits when case file modifications are processed, establishment of corresponding overpayments or underpayments, and related follow-up actions with households. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the State provided approximately 129,000 SNAP clients with $371.4 million in Federal benefits. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Benefits may be incorrectly calculated, resulting in households being underpaid and/or overpaid. • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement additional policies and procedures to ensure that: • case information entered into ACES is accurate; • automated eligibility determinations and benefit calculations are processed in accordance with Federal regulations; and • recalculations of previously issued benefits and related follow-up actions occur when case file modifications are retroactive. Corrective Action Plan: See F-13 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. Of the 60 cases reviewed, 13 (21.67%) had errors in calculations or documentation. The Department is confident that the staff followed correct procedures in providing the TANF funded resource guide in the first four cases cited. The errors in these cases were merely a lack of documentation. The Department agrees with the calculation errors in the following 7 cases (11.67% of the 60 reviewed). The Department has developed a corrective action plan to ensure compliance moving forward. Contact: Michael E. Downs, Senior Program Manager, SNAP, DHHS, 207-592-4850 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department states that they are “confident that the staff followed correct procedures” for the four benefit overpayments totaling $5,806 and that “errors in these cases were merely a lack of documentation;” however, the Department cannot substantiate that staff followed established procedures if there is a lack of documentation to support adherence to procedures. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1108-04)

(2024-022) Title: Internal control over SNAP eligibility determinations and benefit calculations needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: SNAP Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.551, 10.561 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Eligibility Special tests and provisions Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 10.551 $12,335 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; incorrectly calculated Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits may result in overpayments or underpayments to clients. Since there are known overpayments and underpayments in our sample, a projection of questioned costs cannot be reasonably estimated. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 7 CFR 272.10; 7 CFR 273.2 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. All State agencies must sufficiently automate their SNAP operations and computerize their systems for obtaining, maintaining, utilizing and transmitting information concerning SNAP. A SNAP application form must be signed to establish a filing date and to determine the State agency’s deadline for acting on the form. The State agency shall not certify a household without a signed form. Condition: SNAP is administered by the Office for Family Independence (OFI) and provides monthly benefits to eligible households to purchase nutritious foods. OFI is required by Federal program regulations to utilize an automated information system for SNAP. The information system must maintain all case file information necessary to properly process eligibility determinations and benefit calculations. The Automated Client Eligibility System (ACES) is the information system used by OFI to automate SNAP operations. ACES relies on the maintenance of a complex framework of system results to make eligibility determinations and related benefit calculations. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 household monthly benefit payments to verify the accuracy of SNAP operations utilizing ACES, and identified the following: • Nine overpayments of monthly SNAP benefits, including: o four benefit overpayments totaling $5,806; the Department was unable to provide documentation to support the maximum income limit requirement. o two benefit overpayments totaling $2,714 where the clients’ application for benefit renewal did not include SNAP; however, the households were open to SNAP benefits. o two benefit overpayments totaling $2,349 due to manual processing errors. o one benefit overpayment totaling $1,041; the client’s signature on their application was missing, which makes them ineligible for SNAP benefits. • One $395 underpayment of a monthly SNAP benefit due to manual processing errors • One household with an overpayment of $425 and an underpayment of $69 due to manual processing errors • Three households received accurate monthly benefit payments; however, asset and expense information were not accurately reflected within ACES. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. The Department does not have adequate policies and procedures in place to ensure that ACES case file modifications, whether manual or system interfaced, that result in adjustments to previously issued monthly SNAP benefits are appropriately processed. This includes a recalculation of previously issued benefits when case file modifications are processed, establishment of corresponding overpayments or underpayments, and related follow-up actions with households. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the State provided approximately 129,000 SNAP clients with $371.4 million in Federal benefits. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Benefits may be incorrectly calculated, resulting in households being underpaid and/or overpaid. • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement additional policies and procedures to ensure that: • case information entered into ACES is accurate; • automated eligibility determinations and benefit calculations are processed in accordance with Federal regulations; and • recalculations of previously issued benefits and related follow-up actions occur when case file modifications are retroactive. Corrective Action Plan: See F-13 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. Of the 60 cases reviewed, 13 (21.67%) had errors in calculations or documentation. The Department is confident that the staff followed correct procedures in providing the TANF funded resource guide in the first four cases cited. The errors in these cases were merely a lack of documentation. The Department agrees with the calculation errors in the following 7 cases (11.67% of the 60 reviewed). The Department has developed a corrective action plan to ensure compliance moving forward. Contact: Michael E. Downs, Senior Program Manager, SNAP, DHHS, 207-592-4850 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department states that they are “confident that the staff followed correct procedures” for the four benefit overpayments totaling $5,806 and that “errors in these cases were merely a lack of documentation;” however, the Department cannot substantiate that staff followed established procedures if there is a lack of documentation to support adherence to procedures. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1108-04)

(2024-023) Title: Internal control over SNAP deceased client cases needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: SNAP Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.551, 10.561 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Eligibility Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 10.551 $11,080 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested a sample of cases where Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits were issued after the client’s date of death (DOD). Issuance of benefits to a deceased client does not necessarily result in unallowable program costs, as the issued benefits may not be expended; therefore, an error rate cannot be applied to the population and a projection of questioned costs cannot be reasonably estimated. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 7 CFR 272.8 and .14 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. State agency action on information items about recipient households shall include review of information and comparison of it to case record information. State agencies must initiate and pursue actions on recipient households within 45 days of the receipt of the information items. States shall establish a system to verify and ensure that benefits are not issued to individuals who are deceased. Condition: The Office for Family Independence (OFI) manages the Automated Client Eligibility System (ACES) used to determine eligibility for Federal assistance programs, including SNAP. Information maintained in ACES is relied upon by OFI for determining monthly SNAP benefits issued to client Electronic Benefit Transaction (EBT) cards. OFI relies on numerous data sources for identifying and providing client DOD information for input into ACES, including monthly data exchanges with the Maine Center for Disease Control & Prevention (MeCDC) Vital Records, which includes Social Security Administration data. Federal program regulations require OFI to act on client cases within 45 days of receipt of DOD information. This includes review and comparison of DOD information to ACES case file information, and suspension of program participation and related benefits as warranted. OFI policies for SNAP require deactivation of the client’s EBT card as well as expungement of authorized benefits from the EBT card. If activity occurred on the client’s EBT card subsequent to the DOD, the case must be reported as potential fraud and referred for investigation. OSA obtained DOD information from MeCDC Vital Records and compared it to clients who received SNAP benefits during fiscal year 2024. OSA identified 214 cases where SNAP benefits were issued more than 75 days following the client’s DOD; this benchmark was applied to denote the 45-day Federal program regulation related to monthly receipt of DOD information. OSA tested 43 of these SNAP cases and identified the following: • 16 single member household clients had EBT card purchase activity after DOD. Of these 16 clients: o 14 clients had transaction activity after DOD that occurred in fiscal year 2024, resulting in unallowable costs totaling $11,080. Additional issues were noted for six of the 14 clients, as follows: • Two clients were not identified as potential fraud in the ACES case file. As a result, they were not referred for investigation as required by OFI policies. • One client’s EBT card was not deactivated upon receipt of DOD information. • Two clients’ benefits were not expunged upon receipt of DOD information as required by OFI policies; benefits were only expunged by the system-automated process based on inactivity after 274 days. • One client’s case remained open 91 days after OFI was notified of the client’s DOD, resulting in three months of unauthorized SNAP benefit issuances. o two clients had transaction activity that occurred subsequent to fiscal year 2024. Of the two clients, one client was not identified as potential fraud in the ACES case file. As a result, they were not referred for investigation as required by OFI policies. • Eight clients with no EBT card purchase activity after DOD had additional issues noted, as follows: o For six clients, the EBT card was never deactivated; therefore, benefits remained open and available for use 83 to 112 days after DOD. o One client’s benefits were not expunged upon receipt of DOD information as required by OFI policies; benefits were only expunged by the system-automated process based on inactivity after 274 days. o One client’s EBT card was never deactivated and benefits were not expunged upon receipt of DOD information as required by OFI policies. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the State provided approximately 129,000 SNAP clients with $371.4 million in Federal benefits. Of the 129,000 SNAP clients, 1,789 had a DOD in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Benefits issued to deceased clients may result in unauthorized EBT card purchase activity. • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance policies and procedures to ensure that DOD information is received, reviewed, and updated in ACES on a more frequent basis to prevent unauthorized SNAP benefit issuances and EBT card purchase activity. In addition, we recommend that the Department review all client cases noted in the Condition of this finding to ensure that: • ACES case file DOD information is accurate; • SNAP benefits are expunged and EBT cards are deactivated in accordance with existing policies; • cases are identified as potential fraud and referred for investigation as warranted; and • unallowable costs are identified and reported to Federal oversight agencies and required recoupment activities are pursued. Corrective Action Plan: See F-13 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. In most cases cited the Department took appropriate action within the 45 days required by federal regulation related to IEVS information or within the 10-12-10 standard required for community complaints depending on the source of the information. The Department recognizes that some actions were lacking or could have been taken more quickly. A dedicated MaineCare Program Integrity Team is now working on the IEVS reports related to deceased members and has detailed SOPs for death matches. Based on the data improvements, this finding may continue to a small degree in the SFY 2025 audit and should be cleaned up in the SFY 2026 audit. Contact: Michael E. Downs, Senior Program Manager, SNAP, DHHS, 207-592-4850 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The exceptions noted in the Condition were identified within a sample of SNAP cases where benefits were issued more than 75 days following the client’s DOD. The 75-day benchmark was applied to include considerations of the monthly (30 day) receipt and the Federal program regulation (45 day). These cases demonstrate that the Department did not take appropriate action as required by Federal regulations in all exceptions identified. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1108-03)

(2024-023) Title: Internal control over SNAP deceased client cases needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: SNAP Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.551, 10.561 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Eligibility Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 10.551 $11,080 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested a sample of cases where Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits were issued after the client’s date of death (DOD). Issuance of benefits to a deceased client does not necessarily result in unallowable program costs, as the issued benefits may not be expended; therefore, an error rate cannot be applied to the population and a projection of questioned costs cannot be reasonably estimated. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 7 CFR 272.8 and .14 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. State agency action on information items about recipient households shall include review of information and comparison of it to case record information. State agencies must initiate and pursue actions on recipient households within 45 days of the receipt of the information items. States shall establish a system to verify and ensure that benefits are not issued to individuals who are deceased. Condition: The Office for Family Independence (OFI) manages the Automated Client Eligibility System (ACES) used to determine eligibility for Federal assistance programs, including SNAP. Information maintained in ACES is relied upon by OFI for determining monthly SNAP benefits issued to client Electronic Benefit Transaction (EBT) cards. OFI relies on numerous data sources for identifying and providing client DOD information for input into ACES, including monthly data exchanges with the Maine Center for Disease Control & Prevention (MeCDC) Vital Records, which includes Social Security Administration data. Federal program regulations require OFI to act on client cases within 45 days of receipt of DOD information. This includes review and comparison of DOD information to ACES case file information, and suspension of program participation and related benefits as warranted. OFI policies for SNAP require deactivation of the client’s EBT card as well as expungement of authorized benefits from the EBT card. If activity occurred on the client’s EBT card subsequent to the DOD, the case must be reported as potential fraud and referred for investigation. OSA obtained DOD information from MeCDC Vital Records and compared it to clients who received SNAP benefits during fiscal year 2024. OSA identified 214 cases where SNAP benefits were issued more than 75 days following the client’s DOD; this benchmark was applied to denote the 45-day Federal program regulation related to monthly receipt of DOD information. OSA tested 43 of these SNAP cases and identified the following: • 16 single member household clients had EBT card purchase activity after DOD. Of these 16 clients: o 14 clients had transaction activity after DOD that occurred in fiscal year 2024, resulting in unallowable costs totaling $11,080. Additional issues were noted for six of the 14 clients, as follows: • Two clients were not identified as potential fraud in the ACES case file. As a result, they were not referred for investigation as required by OFI policies. • One client’s EBT card was not deactivated upon receipt of DOD information. • Two clients’ benefits were not expunged upon receipt of DOD information as required by OFI policies; benefits were only expunged by the system-automated process based on inactivity after 274 days. • One client’s case remained open 91 days after OFI was notified of the client’s DOD, resulting in three months of unauthorized SNAP benefit issuances. o two clients had transaction activity that occurred subsequent to fiscal year 2024. Of the two clients, one client was not identified as potential fraud in the ACES case file. As a result, they were not referred for investigation as required by OFI policies. • Eight clients with no EBT card purchase activity after DOD had additional issues noted, as follows: o For six clients, the EBT card was never deactivated; therefore, benefits remained open and available for use 83 to 112 days after DOD. o One client’s benefits were not expunged upon receipt of DOD information as required by OFI policies; benefits were only expunged by the system-automated process based on inactivity after 274 days. o One client’s EBT card was never deactivated and benefits were not expunged upon receipt of DOD information as required by OFI policies. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the State provided approximately 129,000 SNAP clients with $371.4 million in Federal benefits. Of the 129,000 SNAP clients, 1,789 had a DOD in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Benefits issued to deceased clients may result in unauthorized EBT card purchase activity. • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance policies and procedures to ensure that DOD information is received, reviewed, and updated in ACES on a more frequent basis to prevent unauthorized SNAP benefit issuances and EBT card purchase activity. In addition, we recommend that the Department review all client cases noted in the Condition of this finding to ensure that: • ACES case file DOD information is accurate; • SNAP benefits are expunged and EBT cards are deactivated in accordance with existing policies; • cases are identified as potential fraud and referred for investigation as warranted; and • unallowable costs are identified and reported to Federal oversight agencies and required recoupment activities are pursued. Corrective Action Plan: See F-13 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. In most cases cited the Department took appropriate action within the 45 days required by federal regulation related to IEVS information or within the 10-12-10 standard required for community complaints depending on the source of the information. The Department recognizes that some actions were lacking or could have been taken more quickly. A dedicated MaineCare Program Integrity Team is now working on the IEVS reports related to deceased members and has detailed SOPs for death matches. Based on the data improvements, this finding may continue to a small degree in the SFY 2025 audit and should be cleaned up in the SFY 2026 audit. Contact: Michael E. Downs, Senior Program Manager, SNAP, DHHS, 207-592-4850 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The exceptions noted in the Condition were identified within a sample of SNAP cases where benefits were issued more than 75 days following the client’s DOD. The 75-day benchmark was applied to include considerations of the monthly (30 day) receipt and the Federal program regulation (45 day). These cases demonstrate that the Department did not take appropriate action as required by Federal regulations in all exceptions identified. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1108-03)

(2024-024) Title: Internal control over automated SNAP eligibility certification periods needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: SNAP Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.551, 10.561 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Eligibility Special tests and provisions Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 10.551 $3,973 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; incorrectly suspending Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits may result in overpayments or underpayments to households. Since there are known overpayments and underpayments in our sample, a projection of questioned costs cannot be reasonably estimated. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 7 CFR 272.10; 7 CFR 273.10 and .12 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. All State agencies must sufficiently automate their SNAP operations and computerize their systems for obtaining, maintaining, utilizing and transmitting information concerning SNAP, which includes automatic cutoff of participation for households which have not been recertified at the end of their certification period. SNAP households must be assigned eligibility certification periods of at least six months unless the household is classified as exempt based on program regulations. The State agency must have at least one contact with each SNAP household every 12 months. Submission of periodic eligibility reports is required by non-exempt households. Non-exempt households that are certified for longer than six months must file a periodic report between four months and six months, as required by the State agency. In addition, the State agency must not require the submission of periodic reports by households certified for 12 months or less in which all adult members are elderly or have a disability and no earned income. Condition: SNAP is administered by the Office for Family Independence (OFI) and provides monthly benefits to eligible households to purchase nutritious foods. OFI is required by Federal program regulations to utilize an automated information system for SNAP. The information system must maintain all case file information necessary to properly process eligibility determinations and benefit computations. The Automated Client Eligibility System (ACES) is the information system used by OFI to automate SNAP operations. ACES relies on the maintenance of a complex framework of system rules to make eligibility determinations, including notification letters to clients when 6-month reports and 12-month redeterminations of eligibility are required. All SNAP households, except for elderly and disabled cases with no earned income, are required to submit 6-month reports. In addition, all SNAP households must undergo an annual redetermination of eligibility. Each household’s recertification requirements are indicated by date fields in the ACES case file. If a required report or redetermination is not completed by the date indicated in the applicable field, the case’s monthly SNAP benefit is automatically suspended by the system. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested a sample of 20 cases automatically suspended for failure to complete a required review in fiscal year 2024 to verify the accuracy of automated SNAP operations utilizing ACES. In 14 of the 20 cases tested, OSA identified that ACES incorrectly suspended benefits, as follows: • One case was suspended four months after the 6-month reporting requirement, resulting in a known overpayment of $92. • One case was suspended one month after the annual redetermination requirement, resulting in a known overpayment of $535. • Six cases were underpaid SNAP benefits totaling $4,424 because of incorrect benefit suspensions, ranging from one to five months prior to the applicable 6-month reporting requirement. • Five cases were underpaid SNAP benefits totaling $4,206 because of incorrect benefit suspensions, ranging from five to ten months prior to the annual redetermination requirement. • One case was never required to submit 6-month reports or annual redeterminations since commencement of SNAP benefits in July 2022. This resulted in overpayments for the entirety of fiscal year 2024 totaling $3,346. The Department identified the overpayment in July 2024 but has not recouped it yet, thus OSA is questioning costs totaling $3,346. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the State provided approximately 129,000 SNAP clients with $371.4 million in Federal benefits. 213 clients were automatically suspended by ACES during fiscal year 2024 due to recertification or redetermination requirements. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight • Automated SNAP eligibility system recertification and suspension criteria was not configured in accordance with Federal regulations. Effect: • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Benefits may be incorrectly suspended, resulting in households being underpaid or overpaid. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance policies and procedures to ensure that automated SNAP eligibility certification periods and related ACES case file fields are properly configured to process benefits in accordance with Federal regulations. In addition, we recommend that the Department identify underpayments and/or overpayments resulting from recertification period errors and take action as warranted. Corrective Action Plan: See F-14 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with the factual conclusions and calculations. The Department believes the necessary corrective action has been taken and will be reflected in the SFY25 audit. Contact: Ian Yaffe, Director, Office for Family Independence, DHHS, 207-592-1481 (State Number: 24-1108-02)

(2024-024) Title: Internal control over automated SNAP eligibility certification periods needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: SNAP Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.551, 10.561 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Eligibility Special tests and provisions Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 10.551 $3,973 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; incorrectly suspending Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits may result in overpayments or underpayments to households. Since there are known overpayments and underpayments in our sample, a projection of questioned costs cannot be reasonably estimated. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 7 CFR 272.10; 7 CFR 273.10 and .12 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. All State agencies must sufficiently automate their SNAP operations and computerize their systems for obtaining, maintaining, utilizing and transmitting information concerning SNAP, which includes automatic cutoff of participation for households which have not been recertified at the end of their certification period. SNAP households must be assigned eligibility certification periods of at least six months unless the household is classified as exempt based on program regulations. The State agency must have at least one contact with each SNAP household every 12 months. Submission of periodic eligibility reports is required by non-exempt households. Non-exempt households that are certified for longer than six months must file a periodic report between four months and six months, as required by the State agency. In addition, the State agency must not require the submission of periodic reports by households certified for 12 months or less in which all adult members are elderly or have a disability and no earned income. Condition: SNAP is administered by the Office for Family Independence (OFI) and provides monthly benefits to eligible households to purchase nutritious foods. OFI is required by Federal program regulations to utilize an automated information system for SNAP. The information system must maintain all case file information necessary to properly process eligibility determinations and benefit computations. The Automated Client Eligibility System (ACES) is the information system used by OFI to automate SNAP operations. ACES relies on the maintenance of a complex framework of system rules to make eligibility determinations, including notification letters to clients when 6-month reports and 12-month redeterminations of eligibility are required. All SNAP households, except for elderly and disabled cases with no earned income, are required to submit 6-month reports. In addition, all SNAP households must undergo an annual redetermination of eligibility. Each household’s recertification requirements are indicated by date fields in the ACES case file. If a required report or redetermination is not completed by the date indicated in the applicable field, the case’s monthly SNAP benefit is automatically suspended by the system. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested a sample of 20 cases automatically suspended for failure to complete a required review in fiscal year 2024 to verify the accuracy of automated SNAP operations utilizing ACES. In 14 of the 20 cases tested, OSA identified that ACES incorrectly suspended benefits, as follows: • One case was suspended four months after the 6-month reporting requirement, resulting in a known overpayment of $92. • One case was suspended one month after the annual redetermination requirement, resulting in a known overpayment of $535. • Six cases were underpaid SNAP benefits totaling $4,424 because of incorrect benefit suspensions, ranging from one to five months prior to the applicable 6-month reporting requirement. • Five cases were underpaid SNAP benefits totaling $4,206 because of incorrect benefit suspensions, ranging from five to ten months prior to the annual redetermination requirement. • One case was never required to submit 6-month reports or annual redeterminations since commencement of SNAP benefits in July 2022. This resulted in overpayments for the entirety of fiscal year 2024 totaling $3,346. The Department identified the overpayment in July 2024 but has not recouped it yet, thus OSA is questioning costs totaling $3,346. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the State provided approximately 129,000 SNAP clients with $371.4 million in Federal benefits. 213 clients were automatically suspended by ACES during fiscal year 2024 due to recertification or redetermination requirements. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight • Automated SNAP eligibility system recertification and suspension criteria was not configured in accordance with Federal regulations. Effect: • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Benefits may be incorrectly suspended, resulting in households being underpaid or overpaid. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance policies and procedures to ensure that automated SNAP eligibility certification periods and related ACES case file fields are properly configured to process benefits in accordance with Federal regulations. In addition, we recommend that the Department identify underpayments and/or overpayments resulting from recertification period errors and take action as warranted. Corrective Action Plan: See F-14 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with the factual conclusions and calculations. The Department believes the necessary corrective action has been taken and will be reflected in the SFY25 audit. Contact: Ian Yaffe, Director, Office for Family Independence, DHHS, 207-592-1481 (State Number: 24-1108-02)

(2024-025) Title: Internal control over SNAP EBT card security needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: SNAP Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.551, 10.561 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Special tests and provisions Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 7 CFR 274.5 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The State is required to provide the following minimum security and control procedures for EBT cards: secure storage; access limited to authorized personnel; inventory control records; and a periodic review and validation of inventory controls and records by parties not otherwise involved in maintaining control records. Issuance, inventory, reconciliation, and other accountability records must be maintained for a period of three years. Condition: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides monthly benefits to eligible households to purchase nutritious foods. The program utilizes Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards as the mechanism to provide benefits. SNAP benefit information is transmitted to the Electronic Payment Processing and Information Control (EPPIC) system used for EBT. An EBT card is issued using the EPPIC system and mailed to the client’s mailing address. EBT cards that are undeliverable are returned to the regional Department of Health and Human Services office for processing. Upon receipt of a returned EBT card, the Automated Client Eligibility System (ACES) is used to verify a client’s personal information, determine what action to take based on case file information, and document the action through electronic case notes. The Department has assigned responsibility for processing returned EBT cards to one employee. This process includes receipt of returned cards, maintenance of inventory control records including supporting documentation in ACES and EPPIC, and destruction or retransmission of the card. Proper segregation of duties does not exist within the current process, as recordkeeping, custody of EBT cards, and authorization of processing activity should be assigned to different employees. In addition, the State is required to maintain accurate and complete inventory records for returned EBT cards. Returned cards are either destroyed or retransmitted, and are tracked using spreadsheets and related documentation through client case notes in ACES and EBT card activity in the EPPIC system. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested a sample of 60 returned EBT cards to verify the accuracy and completeness of the activity recorded on the inventory tracking spreadsheets, and identified: • one returned EBT card where processing activity was not documented in a case note; • one returned EBT card where the disabled card status was not applied in the EPPIC system until nine months after it was destroyed; • one returned EBT card where the action documented in ACES did not match the action taken in the EPPIC system; and • two returned EBT cards were recorded on the tracking spreadsheet as retransmitted to an updated address, but no documentation was maintained in ACES to support that a new address was obtained. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. A data analysis and cross-match of the inventory tracking spreadsheets identified that one returned EBT card was processed utilizing client information which erroneously included two unrelated client names tied to the same client identification number. Quarterly, management monitors the inventory tracking spreadsheets by selecting a sample of returned EBT cards for review; however, this oversight procedure does not detect and correct processing errors on a timely basis. Furthermore, the State is required to maintain secure storage of, and limited access to, EBT cards. The current process does not require proper physical security over returned EBT cards as the returned cards are placed in an open mailbox during processing. While the mailbox is in a secure area of the facility, any employee working within the regional office has access to this mailbox. Existing policies and procedures in place do not provide adequate security over returned EBT cards, including proper segregation of duties, maintenance of accurate and complete inventory control records, and appropriate physical security controls over EBT cards. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the State provided approximately 129,000 SNAP clients with $371.4 million in Federal benefits. The Department processed 2,469 returned EBT cards; 853 were recorded as retransmitted and 1,616 were recorded as destroyed. Cause: • Lack of segregation of duties • Lack of adequate policies and procedures relating to the security and oversight of returned EBT cards Effect: • Potential unauthorized use of EBT cards, which may lead to unallowable costs • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance policies and procedures to require adequate security and oversight of returned EBT cards, including proper segregation of duties within the process, maintenance of accurate and complete inventory control records, and increased physical security controls. Corrective Action Plan: See F-14 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. During the audit period, the process for handling returned EBT cards was assigned to one (1) individual. In response to a prior year finding, the Department implemented corrective actions effective July 1, 2024. The current process has the duties separated into 3 roles. First, an Accounting Associate I receives the returned EBT cards at OFI’s Central Office. The Accounting Associate scans the card and envelope to an Office Associate II in a separate office. The Office Associate II enters the cards into a spreadsheet (returned card log) and researches the cases to determine what to do with the card. The Office Associate records the necessary information into the returned card log and makes an ACES case note to reflect any action taken. Then a response is sent back to the Accounting Associate to advise which EBT cards should be shredded and which cards should be resent. Finally, the EBT Manager conducts a periodic review of the returned card log to ensure the cards are being handled appropriately. The Department will also be hiring a new Office Associate II (Supervisor) to assist in this process. Because these procedures were implemented effective 7/1/2024, they were not captured during this single audit. No corrective action is required due to our current procedures meeting state and Federal card security requirements. Contact: Ian Yaffe, Director, Office for Family Independence, DHHS, 207-592-1481 (State Number: 24-1108-01)

(2024-025) Title: Internal control over SNAP EBT card security needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: SNAP Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.551, 10.561 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Special tests and provisions Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 7 CFR 274.5 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The State is required to provide the following minimum security and control procedures for EBT cards: secure storage; access limited to authorized personnel; inventory control records; and a periodic review and validation of inventory controls and records by parties not otherwise involved in maintaining control records. Issuance, inventory, reconciliation, and other accountability records must be maintained for a period of three years. Condition: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides monthly benefits to eligible households to purchase nutritious foods. The program utilizes Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards as the mechanism to provide benefits. SNAP benefit information is transmitted to the Electronic Payment Processing and Information Control (EPPIC) system used for EBT. An EBT card is issued using the EPPIC system and mailed to the client’s mailing address. EBT cards that are undeliverable are returned to the regional Department of Health and Human Services office for processing. Upon receipt of a returned EBT card, the Automated Client Eligibility System (ACES) is used to verify a client’s personal information, determine what action to take based on case file information, and document the action through electronic case notes. The Department has assigned responsibility for processing returned EBT cards to one employee. This process includes receipt of returned cards, maintenance of inventory control records including supporting documentation in ACES and EPPIC, and destruction or retransmission of the card. Proper segregation of duties does not exist within the current process, as recordkeeping, custody of EBT cards, and authorization of processing activity should be assigned to different employees. In addition, the State is required to maintain accurate and complete inventory records for returned EBT cards. Returned cards are either destroyed or retransmitted, and are tracked using spreadsheets and related documentation through client case notes in ACES and EBT card activity in the EPPIC system. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested a sample of 60 returned EBT cards to verify the accuracy and completeness of the activity recorded on the inventory tracking spreadsheets, and identified: • one returned EBT card where processing activity was not documented in a case note; • one returned EBT card where the disabled card status was not applied in the EPPIC system until nine months after it was destroyed; • one returned EBT card where the action documented in ACES did not match the action taken in the EPPIC system; and • two returned EBT cards were recorded on the tracking spreadsheet as retransmitted to an updated address, but no documentation was maintained in ACES to support that a new address was obtained. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. A data analysis and cross-match of the inventory tracking spreadsheets identified that one returned EBT card was processed utilizing client information which erroneously included two unrelated client names tied to the same client identification number. Quarterly, management monitors the inventory tracking spreadsheets by selecting a sample of returned EBT cards for review; however, this oversight procedure does not detect and correct processing errors on a timely basis. Furthermore, the State is required to maintain secure storage of, and limited access to, EBT cards. The current process does not require proper physical security over returned EBT cards as the returned cards are placed in an open mailbox during processing. While the mailbox is in a secure area of the facility, any employee working within the regional office has access to this mailbox. Existing policies and procedures in place do not provide adequate security over returned EBT cards, including proper segregation of duties, maintenance of accurate and complete inventory control records, and appropriate physical security controls over EBT cards. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the State provided approximately 129,000 SNAP clients with $371.4 million in Federal benefits. The Department processed 2,469 returned EBT cards; 853 were recorded as retransmitted and 1,616 were recorded as destroyed. Cause: • Lack of segregation of duties • Lack of adequate policies and procedures relating to the security and oversight of returned EBT cards Effect: • Potential unauthorized use of EBT cards, which may lead to unallowable costs • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance policies and procedures to require adequate security and oversight of returned EBT cards, including proper segregation of duties within the process, maintenance of accurate and complete inventory control records, and increased physical security controls. Corrective Action Plan: See F-14 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. During the audit period, the process for handling returned EBT cards was assigned to one (1) individual. In response to a prior year finding, the Department implemented corrective actions effective July 1, 2024. The current process has the duties separated into 3 roles. First, an Accounting Associate I receives the returned EBT cards at OFI’s Central Office. The Accounting Associate scans the card and envelope to an Office Associate II in a separate office. The Office Associate II enters the cards into a spreadsheet (returned card log) and researches the cases to determine what to do with the card. The Office Associate records the necessary information into the returned card log and makes an ACES case note to reflect any action taken. Then a response is sent back to the Accounting Associate to advise which EBT cards should be shredded and which cards should be resent. Finally, the EBT Manager conducts a periodic review of the returned card log to ensure the cards are being handled appropriately. The Department will also be hiring a new Office Associate II (Supervisor) to assist in this process. Because these procedures were implemented effective 7/1/2024, they were not captured during this single audit. No corrective action is required due to our current procedures meeting state and Federal card security requirements. Contact: Ian Yaffe, Director, Office for Family Independence, DHHS, 207-592-1481 (State Number: 24-1108-01)

(2024-026) Title: Internal control over DHHS special reporting needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Division of Contract Management Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: SNAP Cluster Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) (COVID-19) Opioid STR Assistance Listing Number: 10.551, 10.561; 10.557; 93.788 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 170 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Agencies must report each subaward that equals or exceeds the first-tier subaward threshold of $30,000 in Federal funds in the public-facing Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) Subaward Reporting System (FSRS). Condition: When an amount exceeding the first-tier subaward threshold is awarded to a subrecipient, the Department must collect and enter data into FSRS. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested nine first-tier subawards totaling $1,515,620 that exceeded the first-tier subaward threshold. Federal regulations require the following information for identified noncompliance to be included in FFATA findings: • three WIC subawards totaling approximately $746,000 were not reported and thus, not reported timely; • one Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) subaward totaling approximately $95,000 was not reported and thus, not reported timely; • one Opioid State Targeted Response (STR) subaward totaling approximately $68,000 was not reported and thus, not reported timely; • no subaward amounts were reported incorrectly; and • no subawards reported incorrect key data elements. The unreported Opioid STR subaward was a contract modification that included multiple sources of grant funds including the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Upon OSA’s inquiry, the Department stated that the Opioid STR subaward was not reported because the Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN) was missing. The Department provided a verification workbook that serves as a working log for subawards that may require FFATA reporting but have not been reported in FSRS for various reasons. Review of the log revealed additional grant programs, including WIC and SNAP, with unreported subawards due to missing FAINs. OSA was able to locate the missing FAINs by contacting the grant program administrators listed on the encumbered contract. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: During fiscal year 2024, the Department disbursed: • $5.9 million to subrecipients from WIC grant funds of $22.8 million. • $5.2 million to subrecipients from SNAP administrative grant funds of $19.1 million. • $4.9 million to subrecipients from Opioid STR grant funds of $5.9 million. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate policies and procedures Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Accurate first-tier subaward information for the WIC, SNAP, and Opioid STR programs was not reported to the Federal government. This information may be used for programmatic, policy or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance policies and oversight procedures to ensure that all first-tier subawards are reported accurately, timely, and in accordance with Federal regulations. Corrective Action Plan: See F-14 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Division of Contract Management has developed and will implement a corrective action plan to address the issues identified. Contact: Jeanne Garza, Deputy Director, Division of Contract Management, DHHS, 207-287-1848 (State Number: 24-1100-02)

(2024-026) Title: Internal control over DHHS special reporting needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Division of Contract Management Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: SNAP Cluster Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) (COVID-19) Opioid STR Assistance Listing Number: 10.551, 10.561; 10.557; 93.788 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 170 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Agencies must report each subaward that equals or exceeds the first-tier subaward threshold of $30,000 in Federal funds in the public-facing Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) Subaward Reporting System (FSRS). Condition: When an amount exceeding the first-tier subaward threshold is awarded to a subrecipient, the Department must collect and enter data into FSRS. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested nine first-tier subawards totaling $1,515,620 that exceeded the first-tier subaward threshold. Federal regulations require the following information for identified noncompliance to be included in FFATA findings: • three WIC subawards totaling approximately $746,000 were not reported and thus, not reported timely; • one Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) subaward totaling approximately $95,000 was not reported and thus, not reported timely; • one Opioid State Targeted Response (STR) subaward totaling approximately $68,000 was not reported and thus, not reported timely; • no subaward amounts were reported incorrectly; and • no subawards reported incorrect key data elements. The unreported Opioid STR subaward was a contract modification that included multiple sources of grant funds including the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Upon OSA’s inquiry, the Department stated that the Opioid STR subaward was not reported because the Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN) was missing. The Department provided a verification workbook that serves as a working log for subawards that may require FFATA reporting but have not been reported in FSRS for various reasons. Review of the log revealed additional grant programs, including WIC and SNAP, with unreported subawards due to missing FAINs. OSA was able to locate the missing FAINs by contacting the grant program administrators listed on the encumbered contract. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: During fiscal year 2024, the Department disbursed: • $5.9 million to subrecipients from WIC grant funds of $22.8 million. • $5.2 million to subrecipients from SNAP administrative grant funds of $19.1 million. • $4.9 million to subrecipients from Opioid STR grant funds of $5.9 million. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate policies and procedures Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Accurate first-tier subaward information for the WIC, SNAP, and Opioid STR programs was not reported to the Federal government. This information may be used for programmatic, policy or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance policies and oversight procedures to ensure that all first-tier subawards are reported accurately, timely, and in accordance with Federal regulations. Corrective Action Plan: See F-14 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Division of Contract Management has developed and will implement a corrective action plan to address the issues identified. Contact: Jeanne Garza, Deputy Director, Division of Contract Management, DHHS, 207-287-1848 (State Number: 24-1100-02)

(2024-026) Title: Internal control over DHHS special reporting needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Division of Contract Management Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: SNAP Cluster Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) (COVID-19) Opioid STR Assistance Listing Number: 10.551, 10.561; 10.557; 93.788 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 170 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Agencies must report each subaward that equals or exceeds the first-tier subaward threshold of $30,000 in Federal funds in the public-facing Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) Subaward Reporting System (FSRS). Condition: When an amount exceeding the first-tier subaward threshold is awarded to a subrecipient, the Department must collect and enter data into FSRS. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested nine first-tier subawards totaling $1,515,620 that exceeded the first-tier subaward threshold. Federal regulations require the following information for identified noncompliance to be included in FFATA findings: • three WIC subawards totaling approximately $746,000 were not reported and thus, not reported timely; • one Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) subaward totaling approximately $95,000 was not reported and thus, not reported timely; • one Opioid State Targeted Response (STR) subaward totaling approximately $68,000 was not reported and thus, not reported timely; • no subaward amounts were reported incorrectly; and • no subawards reported incorrect key data elements. The unreported Opioid STR subaward was a contract modification that included multiple sources of grant funds including the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Upon OSA’s inquiry, the Department stated that the Opioid STR subaward was not reported because the Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN) was missing. The Department provided a verification workbook that serves as a working log for subawards that may require FFATA reporting but have not been reported in FSRS for various reasons. Review of the log revealed additional grant programs, including WIC and SNAP, with unreported subawards due to missing FAINs. OSA was able to locate the missing FAINs by contacting the grant program administrators listed on the encumbered contract. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: During fiscal year 2024, the Department disbursed: • $5.9 million to subrecipients from WIC grant funds of $22.8 million. • $5.2 million to subrecipients from SNAP administrative grant funds of $19.1 million. • $4.9 million to subrecipients from Opioid STR grant funds of $5.9 million. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate policies and procedures Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Accurate first-tier subaward information for the WIC, SNAP, and Opioid STR programs was not reported to the Federal government. This information may be used for programmatic, policy or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance policies and oversight procedures to ensure that all first-tier subawards are reported accurately, timely, and in accordance with Federal regulations. Corrective Action Plan: See F-14 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Division of Contract Management has developed and will implement a corrective action plan to address the issues identified. Contact: Jeanne Garza, Deputy Director, Division of Contract Management, DHHS, 207-287-1848 (State Number: 24-1100-02)

(2024-026) Title: Internal control over DHHS special reporting needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Division of Contract Management Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: SNAP Cluster Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) (COVID-19) Opioid STR Assistance Listing Number: 10.551, 10.561; 10.557; 93.788 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 170 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Agencies must report each subaward that equals or exceeds the first-tier subaward threshold of $30,000 in Federal funds in the public-facing Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) Subaward Reporting System (FSRS). Condition: When an amount exceeding the first-tier subaward threshold is awarded to a subrecipient, the Department must collect and enter data into FSRS. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested nine first-tier subawards totaling $1,515,620 that exceeded the first-tier subaward threshold. Federal regulations require the following information for identified noncompliance to be included in FFATA findings: • three WIC subawards totaling approximately $746,000 were not reported and thus, not reported timely; • one Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) subaward totaling approximately $95,000 was not reported and thus, not reported timely; • one Opioid State Targeted Response (STR) subaward totaling approximately $68,000 was not reported and thus, not reported timely; • no subaward amounts were reported incorrectly; and • no subawards reported incorrect key data elements. The unreported Opioid STR subaward was a contract modification that included multiple sources of grant funds including the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Upon OSA’s inquiry, the Department stated that the Opioid STR subaward was not reported because the Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN) was missing. The Department provided a verification workbook that serves as a working log for subawards that may require FFATA reporting but have not been reported in FSRS for various reasons. Review of the log revealed additional grant programs, including WIC and SNAP, with unreported subawards due to missing FAINs. OSA was able to locate the missing FAINs by contacting the grant program administrators listed on the encumbered contract. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: During fiscal year 2024, the Department disbursed: • $5.9 million to subrecipients from WIC grant funds of $22.8 million. • $5.2 million to subrecipients from SNAP administrative grant funds of $19.1 million. • $4.9 million to subrecipients from Opioid STR grant funds of $5.9 million. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate policies and procedures Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Accurate first-tier subaward information for the WIC, SNAP, and Opioid STR programs was not reported to the Federal government. This information may be used for programmatic, policy or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance policies and oversight procedures to ensure that all first-tier subawards are reported accurately, timely, and in accordance with Federal regulations. Corrective Action Plan: See F-14 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Division of Contract Management has developed and will implement a corrective action plan to address the issues identified. Contact: Jeanne Garza, Deputy Director, Division of Contract Management, DHHS, 207-287-1848 (State Number: 24-1100-02)

(2024-026) Title: Internal control over DHHS special reporting needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Division of Contract Management Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: SNAP Cluster Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) (COVID-19) Opioid STR Assistance Listing Number: 10.551, 10.561; 10.557; 93.788 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 170 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Agencies must report each subaward that equals or exceeds the first-tier subaward threshold of $30,000 in Federal funds in the public-facing Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) Subaward Reporting System (FSRS). Condition: When an amount exceeding the first-tier subaward threshold is awarded to a subrecipient, the Department must collect and enter data into FSRS. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested nine first-tier subawards totaling $1,515,620 that exceeded the first-tier subaward threshold. Federal regulations require the following information for identified noncompliance to be included in FFATA findings: • three WIC subawards totaling approximately $746,000 were not reported and thus, not reported timely; • one Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) subaward totaling approximately $95,000 was not reported and thus, not reported timely; • one Opioid State Targeted Response (STR) subaward totaling approximately $68,000 was not reported and thus, not reported timely; • no subaward amounts were reported incorrectly; and • no subawards reported incorrect key data elements. The unreported Opioid STR subaward was a contract modification that included multiple sources of grant funds including the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Upon OSA’s inquiry, the Department stated that the Opioid STR subaward was not reported because the Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN) was missing. The Department provided a verification workbook that serves as a working log for subawards that may require FFATA reporting but have not been reported in FSRS for various reasons. Review of the log revealed additional grant programs, including WIC and SNAP, with unreported subawards due to missing FAINs. OSA was able to locate the missing FAINs by contacting the grant program administrators listed on the encumbered contract. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: During fiscal year 2024, the Department disbursed: • $5.9 million to subrecipients from WIC grant funds of $22.8 million. • $5.2 million to subrecipients from SNAP administrative grant funds of $19.1 million. • $4.9 million to subrecipients from Opioid STR grant funds of $5.9 million. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate policies and procedures Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Accurate first-tier subaward information for the WIC, SNAP, and Opioid STR programs was not reported to the Federal government. This information may be used for programmatic, policy or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance policies and oversight procedures to ensure that all first-tier subawards are reported accurately, timely, and in accordance with Federal regulations. Corrective Action Plan: See F-14 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Division of Contract Management has developed and will implement a corrective action plan to address the issues identified. Contact: Jeanne Garza, Deputy Director, Division of Contract Management, DHHS, 207-287-1848 (State Number: 24-1100-02)

(2024-027) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0905-01)

(2024-027) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0905-01)

(2024-027) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0905-01)

(2024-027) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0905-01)

(2024-029) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0905-02)

(2024-029) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0905-02)

(2024-029) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0905-02)

(2024-029) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________ and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0905-02)

(2024-028) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0905-03)

(2024-028) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0905-03)

(2024-028) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0905-03)

(2024-028) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0905-03)

(2024-028) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0905-03)

(2024-028) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0905-03)

(2024-028) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0905-03)

(2024-028) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over the ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0905-03)

(2024-030) Title: Internal control over CNC eligibility needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Eligibility Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 10.559 $628,924 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; there is insufficient information on the application to identify programs that may be operating under an incorrect classification. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 7 CFR 210.7 and .9; 7 CFR 225.6, .14, and .16; 7 CFR 245.12 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. 7 CFR 210 outlines the application requirements for participation in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), and specifies that applications shall provide the State agency with sufficient information to determine eligibility. 7 CFR 225 requirements include: • the type of information that must be required in sponsor applications for participation; • sites that serve an area in which poor economic conditions exist or is approved for reimbursement only for meals served free to enrolled children who meet the program's income standards; • the proposed site is not or will not be served in whole or in part by another site; • State agency requirements related to the approval of applications and determinations of eligibility; and • the process and requirements for claims for reimbursement (CFRs). 7 CFR 245 describes the action taken by State agencies related to the eligibility determination of individuals and special eligibility determinations of schools including Provision II and Community Eligible Provision (CEP) schools. These regulations outline how the School Food Authority (SFA) and State agency should collect and report eligibility information in the schools, and how that information should be used in establishing rates and percentages in CFRs. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) includes the School Breakfast Program, NSLP, Special Milk Program for Children, Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) and the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools, residential childcare institutions, and summer food programs; to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools; and to encourage the consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department of Education (DOE) is responsible for the administration of child nutrition programs for the State. DOE provides benefits to each SFA or sponsor on a reimbursement basis. SFAs and sponsors must submit applications for participation in CNC programs and DOE is required to review every application and site information sheet to ensure that only eligible SFAs or sponsors participate in the programs. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 48 applications and found instances that did not align with program regulations for NSLP and SFSP, as follows: National School Lunch Program Applications to participate in child nutrition programs must include attestations and written agreement to the regulations set forth in 7 CFR 210 and 7 CFR 245. Agreements must be signed and returned to Child Nutrition Services (CNS) prior to meal service and the submission of a CFR by the SFA. OSA tested 32 applications from SFAs and sponsors for participation in NSLP and identified six applications that were not complete or were approved prior to participation in the program, as follows: • Three applications were approved for participation with missing information, including: o one application missing an agreement for participation in CEP; o one application not indicating the year of operation; and o one application missing the signature of the SFA superintendent. • Two applications were submitted after participation in the program had begun. • One application was missing the meal pattern agreement attestation that made them eligible for the eight-cent performance-based reimbursement for every lunch served and was also submitted after participation in the program had begun. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Summer Food Service Program While SFAs may operate SFSP, residential and non-residential day camps, units of local, municipal, county or State governments, and private nonprofit organizations may also participate in the program; these providers are called sponsors. Sponsors must submit a written application to CNS by June 15 to participate in the program. Sponsors operate individual sites, and sponsor applications must include site sheets for each site. OSA tested 16 applications from sponsors for participation in SFSP and found: • four applications were revised and the revisions were erroneously applied to prior months, resulting in questioned costs totaling $1,767 for meals served prior to approved revisions; and • eleven applications, including two with more than one error, that were approved with sites that did not meet the eligibility criteria, as follows: o Four sponsors had sites where CNS incorrectly categorized non-residential day camps as open sites, which allowed the site to use the area eligibility determination instead of using individual eligibility determinations, resulting in questioned costs totaling $68,342 for meals served without eligibility information provided. o Two sponsors of camps did not provide the number of eligible children for each session at their sites prior to submitting a CFR, resulting in questioned costs totaling $63,493 for meals served without eligibility information provided. o Three sponsors had four sites that used incorrect school or census data to demonstrate eligibility, resulting in one site that was ineligible for participation, and questioned costs totaling $33,682 for the operation of an ineligible site. o One application was approved with a breakfast time of 11:30 a.m.; there was no documentation to support that this meal was served near the site’s opening time as required by regulations, resulting in questioned costs totaling $8,635 for meals that do meet meal time requirements. o Three applications were approved for non-congregate sites that did not include procedures to ensure duplicate meals would not be distributed. One sponsor had seven open sites with overlapping meal times within a quarter-mile radius. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. In addition, OSA performed analytical procedures over SFSP site classifications and found: • 58 sites from 32 sponsors did not apply eligibility criteria for camp participation, as follows: o 29 sites were classified as open sites or closed enrolled sites when additional information on the application or publicly available information indicated that the program met the definition of camps provided at 7 CFR 225; these sites used area eligibility to claim reimbursement for all meals served instead of only the meals served to eligible children, resulting in questioned costs totaling $208,142. o 9 sites indicated they were camps; however, they were classified as open sites or closed enrolled sites that used area eligibility to claim reimbursement for all meals served instead of only the meals served to eligible children, resulting in questioned costs totaling $100,379. o 13 sites indicated they were camps; however, their applications were not revised to include actual eligibility counts for each session prior to submission of CFRs, resulting in questioned costs totaling $82,567. o 7 sites described camp activities in their description of operations, but classified themselves as open sites or closed enrolled sites that used area eligibility to claim reimbursement for all meals served instead of only the meals served to eligible campers, resulting in questioned costs totaling $48,224. • 16 sponsors had site revisions approved by CNS that added operating days, increased capacities, changed meal types, added meals, or added non-congregate operations to a prior month. CNS permitted sponsors to include those revisions in the prior month’s CFR which were not in accordance with the agreement in place at the time of service, resulting in questioned costs totaling $13,693. Context: CNS processed $55.8 million in CFRs for NSLP, and $2.8 million in CFRs for SFSP in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • CNC participation by ineligible SFAs or sponsors • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that CNS revise policies and procedures to ensure: • SFSP site information sheet revisions prohibit the sponsor from using the revised information in a claim for a prior month; • site classifications appropriately identify camps, consistent with Federal regulations; and • site information sheets contain non-congregate plans that include required information. Additionally, we recommend that CNS enhance oversight to ensure: • all required documents for applications are complete and signed prior to meal service; • session-specific eligibility information is available on the site information sheets for camps; and • the eligibility of the locations of non-congregate sites is properly supported. Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. Procedures for “Application Approvals” will be delineated regarding application and claim revisions, Site classification, non-congregate plan requirements, Eligibility criteria and back up documentation, and all requirement documents will be adequately reviewed. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 (State Number: 24-1203-05)

(2024-030) Title: Internal control over CNC eligibility needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Eligibility Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 10.559 $628,924 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; there is insufficient information on the application to identify programs that may be operating under an incorrect classification. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 7 CFR 210.7 and .9; 7 CFR 225.6, .14, and .16; 7 CFR 245.12 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. 7 CFR 210 outlines the application requirements for participation in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), and specifies that applications shall provide the State agency with sufficient information to determine eligibility. 7 CFR 225 requirements include: • the type of information that must be required in sponsor applications for participation; • sites that serve an area in which poor economic conditions exist or is approved for reimbursement only for meals served free to enrolled children who meet the program's income standards; • the proposed site is not or will not be served in whole or in part by another site; • State agency requirements related to the approval of applications and determinations of eligibility; and • the process and requirements for claims for reimbursement (CFRs). 7 CFR 245 describes the action taken by State agencies related to the eligibility determination of individuals and special eligibility determinations of schools including Provision II and Community Eligible Provision (CEP) schools. These regulations outline how the School Food Authority (SFA) and State agency should collect and report eligibility information in the schools, and how that information should be used in establishing rates and percentages in CFRs. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) includes the School Breakfast Program, NSLP, Special Milk Program for Children, Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) and the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools, residential childcare institutions, and summer food programs; to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools; and to encourage the consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department of Education (DOE) is responsible for the administration of child nutrition programs for the State. DOE provides benefits to each SFA or sponsor on a reimbursement basis. SFAs and sponsors must submit applications for participation in CNC programs and DOE is required to review every application and site information sheet to ensure that only eligible SFAs or sponsors participate in the programs. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 48 applications and found instances that did not align with program regulations for NSLP and SFSP, as follows: National School Lunch Program Applications to participate in child nutrition programs must include attestations and written agreement to the regulations set forth in 7 CFR 210 and 7 CFR 245. Agreements must be signed and returned to Child Nutrition Services (CNS) prior to meal service and the submission of a CFR by the SFA. OSA tested 32 applications from SFAs and sponsors for participation in NSLP and identified six applications that were not complete or were approved prior to participation in the program, as follows: • Three applications were approved for participation with missing information, including: o one application missing an agreement for participation in CEP; o one application not indicating the year of operation; and o one application missing the signature of the SFA superintendent. • Two applications were submitted after participation in the program had begun. • One application was missing the meal pattern agreement attestation that made them eligible for the eight-cent performance-based reimbursement for every lunch served and was also submitted after participation in the program had begun. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Summer Food Service Program While SFAs may operate SFSP, residential and non-residential day camps, units of local, municipal, county or State governments, and private nonprofit organizations may also participate in the program; these providers are called sponsors. Sponsors must submit a written application to CNS by June 15 to participate in the program. Sponsors operate individual sites, and sponsor applications must include site sheets for each site. OSA tested 16 applications from sponsors for participation in SFSP and found: • four applications were revised and the revisions were erroneously applied to prior months, resulting in questioned costs totaling $1,767 for meals served prior to approved revisions; and • eleven applications, including two with more than one error, that were approved with sites that did not meet the eligibility criteria, as follows: o Four sponsors had sites where CNS incorrectly categorized non-residential day camps as open sites, which allowed the site to use the area eligibility determination instead of using individual eligibility determinations, resulting in questioned costs totaling $68,342 for meals served without eligibility information provided. o Two sponsors of camps did not provide the number of eligible children for each session at their sites prior to submitting a CFR, resulting in questioned costs totaling $63,493 for meals served without eligibility information provided. o Three sponsors had four sites that used incorrect school or census data to demonstrate eligibility, resulting in one site that was ineligible for participation, and questioned costs totaling $33,682 for the operation of an ineligible site. o One application was approved with a breakfast time of 11:30 a.m.; there was no documentation to support that this meal was served near the site’s opening time as required by regulations, resulting in questioned costs totaling $8,635 for meals that do meet meal time requirements. o Three applications were approved for non-congregate sites that did not include procedures to ensure duplicate meals would not be distributed. One sponsor had seven open sites with overlapping meal times within a quarter-mile radius. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. In addition, OSA performed analytical procedures over SFSP site classifications and found: • 58 sites from 32 sponsors did not apply eligibility criteria for camp participation, as follows: o 29 sites were classified as open sites or closed enrolled sites when additional information on the application or publicly available information indicated that the program met the definition of camps provided at 7 CFR 225; these sites used area eligibility to claim reimbursement for all meals served instead of only the meals served to eligible children, resulting in questioned costs totaling $208,142. o 9 sites indicated they were camps; however, they were classified as open sites or closed enrolled sites that used area eligibility to claim reimbursement for all meals served instead of only the meals served to eligible children, resulting in questioned costs totaling $100,379. o 13 sites indicated they were camps; however, their applications were not revised to include actual eligibility counts for each session prior to submission of CFRs, resulting in questioned costs totaling $82,567. o 7 sites described camp activities in their description of operations, but classified themselves as open sites or closed enrolled sites that used area eligibility to claim reimbursement for all meals served instead of only the meals served to eligible campers, resulting in questioned costs totaling $48,224. • 16 sponsors had site revisions approved by CNS that added operating days, increased capacities, changed meal types, added meals, or added non-congregate operations to a prior month. CNS permitted sponsors to include those revisions in the prior month’s CFR which were not in accordance with the agreement in place at the time of service, resulting in questioned costs totaling $13,693. Context: CNS processed $55.8 million in CFRs for NSLP, and $2.8 million in CFRs for SFSP in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • CNC participation by ineligible SFAs or sponsors • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that CNS revise policies and procedures to ensure: • SFSP site information sheet revisions prohibit the sponsor from using the revised information in a claim for a prior month; • site classifications appropriately identify camps, consistent with Federal regulations; and • site information sheets contain non-congregate plans that include required information. Additionally, we recommend that CNS enhance oversight to ensure: • all required documents for applications are complete and signed prior to meal service; • session-specific eligibility information is available on the site information sheets for camps; and • the eligibility of the locations of non-congregate sites is properly supported. Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. Procedures for “Application Approvals” will be delineated regarding application and claim revisions, Site classification, non-congregate plan requirements, Eligibility criteria and back up documentation, and all requirement documents will be adequately reviewed. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 (State Number: 24-1203-05)

(2024-030) Title: Internal control over CNC eligibility needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Eligibility Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 10.559 $628,924 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; there is insufficient information on the application to identify programs that may be operating under an incorrect classification. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 7 CFR 210.7 and .9; 7 CFR 225.6, .14, and .16; 7 CFR 245.12 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. 7 CFR 210 outlines the application requirements for participation in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), and specifies that applications shall provide the State agency with sufficient information to determine eligibility. 7 CFR 225 requirements include: • the type of information that must be required in sponsor applications for participation; • sites that serve an area in which poor economic conditions exist or is approved for reimbursement only for meals served free to enrolled children who meet the program's income standards; • the proposed site is not or will not be served in whole or in part by another site; • State agency requirements related to the approval of applications and determinations of eligibility; and • the process and requirements for claims for reimbursement (CFRs). 7 CFR 245 describes the action taken by State agencies related to the eligibility determination of individuals and special eligibility determinations of schools including Provision II and Community Eligible Provision (CEP) schools. These regulations outline how the School Food Authority (SFA) and State agency should collect and report eligibility information in the schools, and how that information should be used in establishing rates and percentages in CFRs. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) includes the School Breakfast Program, NSLP, Special Milk Program for Children, Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) and the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools, residential childcare institutions, and summer food programs; to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools; and to encourage the consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department of Education (DOE) is responsible for the administration of child nutrition programs for the State. DOE provides benefits to each SFA or sponsor on a reimbursement basis. SFAs and sponsors must submit applications for participation in CNC programs and DOE is required to review every application and site information sheet to ensure that only eligible SFAs or sponsors participate in the programs. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 48 applications and found instances that did not align with program regulations for NSLP and SFSP, as follows: National School Lunch Program Applications to participate in child nutrition programs must include attestations and written agreement to the regulations set forth in 7 CFR 210 and 7 CFR 245. Agreements must be signed and returned to Child Nutrition Services (CNS) prior to meal service and the submission of a CFR by the SFA. OSA tested 32 applications from SFAs and sponsors for participation in NSLP and identified six applications that were not complete or were approved prior to participation in the program, as follows: • Three applications were approved for participation with missing information, including: o one application missing an agreement for participation in CEP; o one application not indicating the year of operation; and o one application missing the signature of the SFA superintendent. • Two applications were submitted after participation in the program had begun. • One application was missing the meal pattern agreement attestation that made them eligible for the eight-cent performance-based reimbursement for every lunch served and was also submitted after participation in the program had begun. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Summer Food Service Program While SFAs may operate SFSP, residential and non-residential day camps, units of local, municipal, county or State governments, and private nonprofit organizations may also participate in the program; these providers are called sponsors. Sponsors must submit a written application to CNS by June 15 to participate in the program. Sponsors operate individual sites, and sponsor applications must include site sheets for each site. OSA tested 16 applications from sponsors for participation in SFSP and found: • four applications were revised and the revisions were erroneously applied to prior months, resulting in questioned costs totaling $1,767 for meals served prior to approved revisions; and • eleven applications, including two with more than one error, that were approved with sites that did not meet the eligibility criteria, as follows: o Four sponsors had sites where CNS incorrectly categorized non-residential day camps as open sites, which allowed the site to use the area eligibility determination instead of using individual eligibility determinations, resulting in questioned costs totaling $68,342 for meals served without eligibility information provided. o Two sponsors of camps did not provide the number of eligible children for each session at their sites prior to submitting a CFR, resulting in questioned costs totaling $63,493 for meals served without eligibility information provided. o Three sponsors had four sites that used incorrect school or census data to demonstrate eligibility, resulting in one site that was ineligible for participation, and questioned costs totaling $33,682 for the operation of an ineligible site. o One application was approved with a breakfast time of 11:30 a.m.; there was no documentation to support that this meal was served near the site’s opening time as required by regulations, resulting in questioned costs totaling $8,635 for meals that do meet meal time requirements. o Three applications were approved for non-congregate sites that did not include procedures to ensure duplicate meals would not be distributed. One sponsor had seven open sites with overlapping meal times within a quarter-mile radius. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. In addition, OSA performed analytical procedures over SFSP site classifications and found: • 58 sites from 32 sponsors did not apply eligibility criteria for camp participation, as follows: o 29 sites were classified as open sites or closed enrolled sites when additional information on the application or publicly available information indicated that the program met the definition of camps provided at 7 CFR 225; these sites used area eligibility to claim reimbursement for all meals served instead of only the meals served to eligible children, resulting in questioned costs totaling $208,142. o 9 sites indicated they were camps; however, they were classified as open sites or closed enrolled sites that used area eligibility to claim reimbursement for all meals served instead of only the meals served to eligible children, resulting in questioned costs totaling $100,379. o 13 sites indicated they were camps; however, their applications were not revised to include actual eligibility counts for each session prior to submission of CFRs, resulting in questioned costs totaling $82,567. o 7 sites described camp activities in their description of operations, but classified themselves as open sites or closed enrolled sites that used area eligibility to claim reimbursement for all meals served instead of only the meals served to eligible campers, resulting in questioned costs totaling $48,224. • 16 sponsors had site revisions approved by CNS that added operating days, increased capacities, changed meal types, added meals, or added non-congregate operations to a prior month. CNS permitted sponsors to include those revisions in the prior month’s CFR which were not in accordance with the agreement in place at the time of service, resulting in questioned costs totaling $13,693. Context: CNS processed $55.8 million in CFRs for NSLP, and $2.8 million in CFRs for SFSP in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • CNC participation by ineligible SFAs or sponsors • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that CNS revise policies and procedures to ensure: • SFSP site information sheet revisions prohibit the sponsor from using the revised information in a claim for a prior month; • site classifications appropriately identify camps, consistent with Federal regulations; and • site information sheets contain non-congregate plans that include required information. Additionally, we recommend that CNS enhance oversight to ensure: • all required documents for applications are complete and signed prior to meal service; • session-specific eligibility information is available on the site information sheets for camps; and • the eligibility of the locations of non-congregate sites is properly supported. Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. Procedures for “Application Approvals” will be delineated regarding application and claim revisions, Site classification, non-congregate plan requirements, Eligibility criteria and back up documentation, and all requirement documents will be adequately reviewed. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 (State Number: 24-1203-05)

(2024-030) Title: Internal control over CNC eligibility needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Eligibility Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 10.559 $628,924 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; there is insufficient information on the application to identify programs that may be operating under an incorrect classification. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 7 CFR 210.7 and .9; 7 CFR 225.6, .14, and .16; 7 CFR 245.12 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. 7 CFR 210 outlines the application requirements for participation in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), and specifies that applications shall provide the State agency with sufficient information to determine eligibility. 7 CFR 225 requirements include: • the type of information that must be required in sponsor applications for participation; • sites that serve an area in which poor economic conditions exist or is approved for reimbursement only for meals served free to enrolled children who meet the program's income standards; • the proposed site is not or will not be served in whole or in part by another site; • State agency requirements related to the approval of applications and determinations of eligibility; and • the process and requirements for claims for reimbursement (CFRs). 7 CFR 245 describes the action taken by State agencies related to the eligibility determination of individuals and special eligibility determinations of schools including Provision II and Community Eligible Provision (CEP) schools. These regulations outline how the School Food Authority (SFA) and State agency should collect and report eligibility information in the schools, and how that information should be used in establishing rates and percentages in CFRs. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) includes the School Breakfast Program, NSLP, Special Milk Program for Children, Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) and the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools, residential childcare institutions, and summer food programs; to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools; and to encourage the consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department of Education (DOE) is responsible for the administration of child nutrition programs for the State. DOE provides benefits to each SFA or sponsor on a reimbursement basis. SFAs and sponsors must submit applications for participation in CNC programs and DOE is required to review every application and site information sheet to ensure that only eligible SFAs or sponsors participate in the programs. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 48 applications and found instances that did not align with program regulations for NSLP and SFSP, as follows: National School Lunch Program Applications to participate in child nutrition programs must include attestations and written agreement to the regulations set forth in 7 CFR 210 and 7 CFR 245. Agreements must be signed and returned to Child Nutrition Services (CNS) prior to meal service and the submission of a CFR by the SFA. OSA tested 32 applications from SFAs and sponsors for participation in NSLP and identified six applications that were not complete or were approved prior to participation in the program, as follows: • Three applications were approved for participation with missing information, including: o one application missing an agreement for participation in CEP; o one application not indicating the year of operation; and o one application missing the signature of the SFA superintendent. • Two applications were submitted after participation in the program had begun. • One application was missing the meal pattern agreement attestation that made them eligible for the eight-cent performance-based reimbursement for every lunch served and was also submitted after participation in the program had begun. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Summer Food Service Program While SFAs may operate SFSP, residential and non-residential day camps, units of local, municipal, county or State governments, and private nonprofit organizations may also participate in the program; these providers are called sponsors. Sponsors must submit a written application to CNS by June 15 to participate in the program. Sponsors operate individual sites, and sponsor applications must include site sheets for each site. OSA tested 16 applications from sponsors for participation in SFSP and found: • four applications were revised and the revisions were erroneously applied to prior months, resulting in questioned costs totaling $1,767 for meals served prior to approved revisions; and • eleven applications, including two with more than one error, that were approved with sites that did not meet the eligibility criteria, as follows: o Four sponsors had sites where CNS incorrectly categorized non-residential day camps as open sites, which allowed the site to use the area eligibility determination instead of using individual eligibility determinations, resulting in questioned costs totaling $68,342 for meals served without eligibility information provided. o Two sponsors of camps did not provide the number of eligible children for each session at their sites prior to submitting a CFR, resulting in questioned costs totaling $63,493 for meals served without eligibility information provided. o Three sponsors had four sites that used incorrect school or census data to demonstrate eligibility, resulting in one site that was ineligible for participation, and questioned costs totaling $33,682 for the operation of an ineligible site. o One application was approved with a breakfast time of 11:30 a.m.; there was no documentation to support that this meal was served near the site’s opening time as required by regulations, resulting in questioned costs totaling $8,635 for meals that do meet meal time requirements. o Three applications were approved for non-congregate sites that did not include procedures to ensure duplicate meals would not be distributed. One sponsor had seven open sites with overlapping meal times within a quarter-mile radius. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. In addition, OSA performed analytical procedures over SFSP site classifications and found: • 58 sites from 32 sponsors did not apply eligibility criteria for camp participation, as follows: o 29 sites were classified as open sites or closed enrolled sites when additional information on the application or publicly available information indicated that the program met the definition of camps provided at 7 CFR 225; these sites used area eligibility to claim reimbursement for all meals served instead of only the meals served to eligible children, resulting in questioned costs totaling $208,142. o 9 sites indicated they were camps; however, they were classified as open sites or closed enrolled sites that used area eligibility to claim reimbursement for all meals served instead of only the meals served to eligible children, resulting in questioned costs totaling $100,379. o 13 sites indicated they were camps; however, their applications were not revised to include actual eligibility counts for each session prior to submission of CFRs, resulting in questioned costs totaling $82,567. o 7 sites described camp activities in their description of operations, but classified themselves as open sites or closed enrolled sites that used area eligibility to claim reimbursement for all meals served instead of only the meals served to eligible campers, resulting in questioned costs totaling $48,224. • 16 sponsors had site revisions approved by CNS that added operating days, increased capacities, changed meal types, added meals, or added non-congregate operations to a prior month. CNS permitted sponsors to include those revisions in the prior month’s CFR which were not in accordance with the agreement in place at the time of service, resulting in questioned costs totaling $13,693. Context: CNS processed $55.8 million in CFRs for NSLP, and $2.8 million in CFRs for SFSP in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • CNC participation by ineligible SFAs or sponsors • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that CNS revise policies and procedures to ensure: • SFSP site information sheet revisions prohibit the sponsor from using the revised information in a claim for a prior month; • site classifications appropriately identify camps, consistent with Federal regulations; and • site information sheets contain non-congregate plans that include required information. Additionally, we recommend that CNS enhance oversight to ensure: • all required documents for applications are complete and signed prior to meal service; • session-specific eligibility information is available on the site information sheets for camps; and • the eligibility of the locations of non-congregate sites is properly supported. Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. Procedures for “Application Approvals” will be delineated regarding application and claim revisions, Site classification, non-congregate plan requirements, Eligibility criteria and back up documentation, and all requirement documents will be adequately reviewed. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 (State Number: 24-1203-05)

(2024-030) Title: Internal control over CNC eligibility needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Eligibility Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 10.559 $628,924 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; there is insufficient information on the application to identify programs that may be operating under an incorrect classification. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 7 CFR 210.7 and .9; 7 CFR 225.6, .14, and .16; 7 CFR 245.12 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. 7 CFR 210 outlines the application requirements for participation in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), and specifies that applications shall provide the State agency with sufficient information to determine eligibility. 7 CFR 225 requirements include: • the type of information that must be required in sponsor applications for participation; • sites that serve an area in which poor economic conditions exist or is approved for reimbursement only for meals served free to enrolled children who meet the program's income standards; • the proposed site is not or will not be served in whole or in part by another site; • State agency requirements related to the approval of applications and determinations of eligibility; and • the process and requirements for claims for reimbursement (CFRs). 7 CFR 245 describes the action taken by State agencies related to the eligibility determination of individuals and special eligibility determinations of schools including Provision II and Community Eligible Provision (CEP) schools. These regulations outline how the School Food Authority (SFA) and State agency should collect and report eligibility information in the schools, and how that information should be used in establishing rates and percentages in CFRs. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) includes the School Breakfast Program, NSLP, Special Milk Program for Children, Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) and the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools, residential childcare institutions, and summer food programs; to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools; and to encourage the consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department of Education (DOE) is responsible for the administration of child nutrition programs for the State. DOE provides benefits to each SFA or sponsor on a reimbursement basis. SFAs and sponsors must submit applications for participation in CNC programs and DOE is required to review every application and site information sheet to ensure that only eligible SFAs or sponsors participate in the programs. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 48 applications and found instances that did not align with program regulations for NSLP and SFSP, as follows: National School Lunch Program Applications to participate in child nutrition programs must include attestations and written agreement to the regulations set forth in 7 CFR 210 and 7 CFR 245. Agreements must be signed and returned to Child Nutrition Services (CNS) prior to meal service and the submission of a CFR by the SFA. OSA tested 32 applications from SFAs and sponsors for participation in NSLP and identified six applications that were not complete or were approved prior to participation in the program, as follows: • Three applications were approved for participation with missing information, including: o one application missing an agreement for participation in CEP; o one application not indicating the year of operation; and o one application missing the signature of the SFA superintendent. • Two applications were submitted after participation in the program had begun. • One application was missing the meal pattern agreement attestation that made them eligible for the eight-cent performance-based reimbursement for every lunch served and was also submitted after participation in the program had begun. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Summer Food Service Program While SFAs may operate SFSP, residential and non-residential day camps, units of local, municipal, county or State governments, and private nonprofit organizations may also participate in the program; these providers are called sponsors. Sponsors must submit a written application to CNS by June 15 to participate in the program. Sponsors operate individual sites, and sponsor applications must include site sheets for each site. OSA tested 16 applications from sponsors for participation in SFSP and found: • four applications were revised and the revisions were erroneously applied to prior months, resulting in questioned costs totaling $1,767 for meals served prior to approved revisions; and • eleven applications, including two with more than one error, that were approved with sites that did not meet the eligibility criteria, as follows: o Four sponsors had sites where CNS incorrectly categorized non-residential day camps as open sites, which allowed the site to use the area eligibility determination instead of using individual eligibility determinations, resulting in questioned costs totaling $68,342 for meals served without eligibility information provided. o Two sponsors of camps did not provide the number of eligible children for each session at their sites prior to submitting a CFR, resulting in questioned costs totaling $63,493 for meals served without eligibility information provided. o Three sponsors had four sites that used incorrect school or census data to demonstrate eligibility, resulting in one site that was ineligible for participation, and questioned costs totaling $33,682 for the operation of an ineligible site. o One application was approved with a breakfast time of 11:30 a.m.; there was no documentation to support that this meal was served near the site’s opening time as required by regulations, resulting in questioned costs totaling $8,635 for meals that do meet meal time requirements. o Three applications were approved for non-congregate sites that did not include procedures to ensure duplicate meals would not be distributed. One sponsor had seven open sites with overlapping meal times within a quarter-mile radius. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. In addition, OSA performed analytical procedures over SFSP site classifications and found: • 58 sites from 32 sponsors did not apply eligibility criteria for camp participation, as follows: o 29 sites were classified as open sites or closed enrolled sites when additional information on the application or publicly available information indicated that the program met the definition of camps provided at 7 CFR 225; these sites used area eligibility to claim reimbursement for all meals served instead of only the meals served to eligible children, resulting in questioned costs totaling $208,142. o 9 sites indicated they were camps; however, they were classified as open sites or closed enrolled sites that used area eligibility to claim reimbursement for all meals served instead of only the meals served to eligible children, resulting in questioned costs totaling $100,379. o 13 sites indicated they were camps; however, their applications were not revised to include actual eligibility counts for each session prior to submission of CFRs, resulting in questioned costs totaling $82,567. o 7 sites described camp activities in their description of operations, but classified themselves as open sites or closed enrolled sites that used area eligibility to claim reimbursement for all meals served instead of only the meals served to eligible campers, resulting in questioned costs totaling $48,224. • 16 sponsors had site revisions approved by CNS that added operating days, increased capacities, changed meal types, added meals, or added non-congregate operations to a prior month. CNS permitted sponsors to include those revisions in the prior month’s CFR which were not in accordance with the agreement in place at the time of service, resulting in questioned costs totaling $13,693. Context: CNS processed $55.8 million in CFRs for NSLP, and $2.8 million in CFRs for SFSP in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • CNC participation by ineligible SFAs or sponsors • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that CNS revise policies and procedures to ensure: • SFSP site information sheet revisions prohibit the sponsor from using the revised information in a claim for a prior month; • site classifications appropriately identify camps, consistent with Federal regulations; and • site information sheets contain non-congregate plans that include required information. Additionally, we recommend that CNS enhance oversight to ensure: • all required documents for applications are complete and signed prior to meal service; • session-specific eligibility information is available on the site information sheets for camps; and • the eligibility of the locations of non-congregate sites is properly supported. Corrective Action Plan: See F-15 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. Procedures for “Application Approvals” will be delineated regarding application and claim revisions, Site classification, non-congregate plan requirements, Eligibility criteria and back up documentation, and all requirement documents will be adequately reviewed. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 (State Number: 24-1203-05)

(2024-031) Title: Internal control over CNC claim reimbursements needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Reporting Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 10.555 $1,605 ALN 10.582 $9,535 ALN 10.559 $117,259 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; due to the variety of site types in the test population and varied meal claim counts, an error rate cannot be applied to the population and a projection of questioned costs cannot be reasonably estimated. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 7 CFR 210.7 and .8; 7 CFR 225.6, .9, and .16; Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, Section 19; U.S. Department of Agriculture Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Handbook The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. 7 CFR 210.7 National School Lunch Program (NSLP) claims for reimbursement (CFRs) must be based on lunch counts taken daily at the point of service (POS), which correctly identify the number of free, reduced price, and paid lunches served to eligible children. 7 CFR 210.8 (NSLP) on a monthly basis, the State agency shall, at a minimum, compare the number of free and reduced price lunches claimed to the number of children approved for free and reduced price lunches enrolled in the School Food Authority (SFA) for the month of October, and multiply that number by the days of operation and the attendance factor employed by the SFA. At its discretion, the State agency may conduct this comparison against data which reflects the number of children approved for free and reduced price lunches for a more current month(s). 7 CFR 225.6 Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) required information must be on a site information sheet that the State agency must provide to the sponsor for approval by the State agency prior to participation in SFSP, including estimated meal counts, types of meals, meal service times, and procedures to ensure duplicate meals are not distributed at non-congregate sites. In order to approve a site, the area where the site proposes to serve is not or will not be served in whole or in part by another site. 7 CFR 225.9 (SFSP) outlines that payments to a sponsor must equal the amount derived by multiplying the number of eligible meals, by type, actually served under the sponsor's program to eligible children by the current applicable reimbursement rate for each meal type. Sponsors must be eligible to receive additional reimbursement for each meal served to participating children at rural or self-preparation sites. 7 CFR 225.16 (SFSP) meals served outside of the meal time listed on the sponsor’s application are not eligible for reimbursement. Sponsors agree in writing to claim reimbursement only for the types of meals specified in the agreement that are served. Section 19 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA) states that the per-pupil grant provided to a school under the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP) shall be not less than $50, nor more than $75. U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) FFVP Handbook, referenced as guidance in Policy Memo SP 17-2023, states that all nonfood costs must be carefully reviewed and deemed reasonable. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) includes the School Breakfast Program, NSLP, Special Milk Program for Children, SFSP and FFVP. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools, residential childcare institutions and summer food programs; to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools; and to encourage the consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department of Education (DOE) is responsible for the administration of child nutrition programs for the State. DOE provides benefits to each SFA or sponsor on a reimbursement basis. SFAs and sponsors must submit claims for reimbursement based on actual meals served for the month and permissible fresh fruits and vegetables utilizing the Child Nutrition Program (CNPWeb) system. The Department is required to review each SFA’s or sponsor’s CFR to ensure that monthly claims are limited to the number of meals served to eligible children and that the cost of the fresh fruits and vegetables are allowable. Once the claims are approved, claims are reimbursed based on the rates that are programmed in the CNPWeb system. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested CFRs for the CNC and found instances that did not align with program regulations for NSLP, FFVP, and SFSP, as follows: National School Lunch Program CNS must perform procedures as outlined in Federal regulations, including a review of CFRs on a monthly basis through analysis utilizing a product of the enrollment information from the month of October multiplied by the days of operation and the attendance factor employed by the SFA. OSA procedures identified that CNS did not review or perform analysis on CFRs on a monthly basis as required. OSA tested 60 CFRs and identified nine CFRs from five SFAs where eligibility information entered on the CFR varied significantly from the information provided and verified by the SFA in October 2023. In order to verify the allowability of the claims identified, OSA requested supporting documentation from those five SFAs. OSA compared the eligibility counts from the CFR, the SFA’s POS reports, the SFA’s October data provided to CNS, and the SFA’s master list of eligible students for the month of the CFR and found: • five POS reports with eligibility counts that conflicted with the master eligibility list provided by the SFA for that month, and with the number of eligible children reported on the CFR, resulting in questioned costs totaling $897; • one POS report from October with eligibility counts that matched the site CFR, but did not match the master eligibility list provided by the SFA, or the data reported to CNS by the SFA for the same month, resulting in questioned costs totaling $708; and • documentation for three CFRs could not be provided. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program CNS ensures compliance with Federal regulations through the annual administrative review process. OSA tested 17 FFVP CFRs from the nine SFAs who had an administrative review in fiscal year 2024 and found: • nine claims from five SFAs had sites with nonfood costs that were not reviewed during the administrative review process. • for six of the nine SFAs, portions of the administrative review process were erroneously omitted; therefore, CNS did not review or examine the allowability for any FFVP CFRs for those six SFAs. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. The FFVP fiscal year is October 1 to September 30; therefore, though schools may begin the school year with unspent funds from the prior school year, these funds must be spent by September 30. OSA tested 19 FFVP SFAs that participated in both fiscal year 2023 and 2024 and found that three SFAs exceeded their fiscal year 2023 allocation in September 2023. CNS did not detect or correct this allocation issue until OSA inquired in September 2024. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Section 19 of the Richard B. Russell NSLA requires that FFVP allocations made by CNS result in a per-pupil grant not less than $50, nor more than $75 to participating SFAs. OSA tested 19 SFAs that participated in FFVP in fiscal year 2024 and found that 14 SFAs had manual allocation adjustments which resulted in ten per-pupil allocations that were not between $50 and $75 per pupil, ranging from $24 per pupil to $109 per pupil. The allocation of funds over $75 per pupil resulted in questioned costs of $9,535. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Summer Food Service Program CNS requires applications from sponsors that include individual site sheets. The information on the sheet must include the estimated number of meals, types of meals to be served, and meal service times. Meal service times must align with the approved application at the time the meals are served. Non-congregate sites must provide enough detail to ensure the area where the site proposes to serve meets certain criteria, including verification that the site: • is rural; • is not or will not be served in whole or in part by another site; • serves an area in which poor economic conditions exist or is approved for reimbursement only for meals served free to enrolled children who meet income standards; and • has procedures to ensure that duplicate meals are not served to any child. Residential and non-residential camps must include in their site sheets the number of children enrolled in each session who meet income standards prior to filing the camp’s CFR for each session. OSA tested 39 SFSP CFRs and found: • nine residential or non-residential camp CFRs that did not include the number of children enrolled in each session who met income standards prior to filing their CFR, resulting in questioned costs totaling $95,902. • two CFRs to non-congregate sites not located in an area where poor economic conditions exist per USDA data. The ineligible sites resulted in questioned costs totaling $15,536. • four CFRs included revised information from the site sheet that did not reflect the conditions at the time the meals were served. The revisions submitted between the meal service and submission of the CFR included an increase in capacity, an addition of meal types, and an addition of operating days, resulting in questioned costs totaling $5,821. • five CFRs to non-congregate sites that did not have documented procedures to prevent duplicate meal service on the site sheet. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Additionally, SFSP has two tiers of administrative rates for reimbursement, self-prep and vended. Sites classified as rural are all reimbursed at the highest rate, but sites classified as urban can either be reimbursed at the higher rate if they serve self-prep meals, or at the lower rate if their meals are vended. CNS previously determined that the field on the application for the sponsor to select whether the meal served is vended or self-prep is not required in the CNPWeb system. At that time, CNS submitted a ticket to request a change to the CNPWeb system to require the sponsor to select a meal type in that field on future applications; however, because that information was not required previously, CNS does not have assurance that urban sites that did not select self-prep or vended are being reimbursed at the correct rate. Furthermore, for each month of operation, CNS must report the number of meals served by meal type and sponsor type to USDA Food Nutrition Services (FNS) on the FNS-418 report. CNS does not have assurance that their default classification of urban sites as self-prep when the field was left blank is accurate for FNS-418 reporting. Context: In fiscal year 2024, CNS processed CFRs totaling: • $55.8 million under NSLP; • $2.8 million under FFVP; and • $2.8 million under SFSP. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Potential incorrect rates of reimbursement paid to SFAs and sponsors • Inaccurate FNS-418 reports submitted to FNS Recommendation: We recommend that CNS enhance policies and procedures to: • require a review of CFRs on a monthly basis in accordance with Federal regulations; • ensure all required information is included in the applications and approved prior to participation; • review and approve area eligibility for non-congregate sites; • require inclusion of self-prep or vended meal types and non-congregate plans on site information sheets that document procedures to prevent duplicate meal service; • ensure session-specific eligibility information is received prior to claim approval for camp sites; and • ensure that site information sheet revisions prohibit the sponsor from using the revised information in a claim for the prior month. In addition, we recommend that CNS enhance oversight over FFVP to ensure: • claims with nonfood costs are reasonable; • allocation amounts remain within $50 to $75 per pupil; and • administrative reviews conducted by CNS include FFVP allowability reviews. Corrective Action Plan: See F-16 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. These findings come from various programs and are correctly outlined in the Condition. However, the Department disagrees with the first bullet in the Recommendation regarding the review of CFRs monthly and has contacted the Northeast Regional Office of the USDA for clarification. Additionally, we disagree with the first bullet point regarding non-food costs in the FFVP program, as it’s addressed in the Administrative Review process. The Department has developed a corrective action plan to address the remaining recommendations. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: 7 CFR 210.8(b)(2) provides detailed requirements outlining the minimum CFR monthly claim review procedures that CNS must perform. CNS has not implemented required procedures, and erroneous CFRs are not detected or corrected, resulting in questioned costs and potential disallowances. In addition, CNS asserts that FFVP nonfood costs are addressed as part of the Administrative Review process; however, OSA identified a material weakness and material noncompliance as issued in finding 2024-032 Internal control over CNC subrecipient monitoring procedures needs improvement. The finding reports that six of the nine Administrative Reviews tested for FFVP inappropriately omitted Federally required steps and that a cost analysis over nonfood costs was not performed. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1203-02)

(2024-031) Title: Internal control over CNC claim reimbursements needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Reporting Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 10.555 $1,605 ALN 10.582 $9,535 ALN 10.559 $117,259 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; due to the variety of site types in the test population and varied meal claim counts, an error rate cannot be applied to the population and a projection of questioned costs cannot be reasonably estimated. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 7 CFR 210.7 and .8; 7 CFR 225.6, .9, and .16; Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, Section 19; U.S. Department of Agriculture Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Handbook The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. 7 CFR 210.7 National School Lunch Program (NSLP) claims for reimbursement (CFRs) must be based on lunch counts taken daily at the point of service (POS), which correctly identify the number of free, reduced price, and paid lunches served to eligible children. 7 CFR 210.8 (NSLP) on a monthly basis, the State agency shall, at a minimum, compare the number of free and reduced price lunches claimed to the number of children approved for free and reduced price lunches enrolled in the School Food Authority (SFA) for the month of October, and multiply that number by the days of operation and the attendance factor employed by the SFA. At its discretion, the State agency may conduct this comparison against data which reflects the number of children approved for free and reduced price lunches for a more current month(s). 7 CFR 225.6 Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) required information must be on a site information sheet that the State agency must provide to the sponsor for approval by the State agency prior to participation in SFSP, including estimated meal counts, types of meals, meal service times, and procedures to ensure duplicate meals are not distributed at non-congregate sites. In order to approve a site, the area where the site proposes to serve is not or will not be served in whole or in part by another site. 7 CFR 225.9 (SFSP) outlines that payments to a sponsor must equal the amount derived by multiplying the number of eligible meals, by type, actually served under the sponsor's program to eligible children by the current applicable reimbursement rate for each meal type. Sponsors must be eligible to receive additional reimbursement for each meal served to participating children at rural or self-preparation sites. 7 CFR 225.16 (SFSP) meals served outside of the meal time listed on the sponsor’s application are not eligible for reimbursement. Sponsors agree in writing to claim reimbursement only for the types of meals specified in the agreement that are served. Section 19 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA) states that the per-pupil grant provided to a school under the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP) shall be not less than $50, nor more than $75. U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) FFVP Handbook, referenced as guidance in Policy Memo SP 17-2023, states that all nonfood costs must be carefully reviewed and deemed reasonable. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) includes the School Breakfast Program, NSLP, Special Milk Program for Children, SFSP and FFVP. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools, residential childcare institutions and summer food programs; to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools; and to encourage the consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department of Education (DOE) is responsible for the administration of child nutrition programs for the State. DOE provides benefits to each SFA or sponsor on a reimbursement basis. SFAs and sponsors must submit claims for reimbursement based on actual meals served for the month and permissible fresh fruits and vegetables utilizing the Child Nutrition Program (CNPWeb) system. The Department is required to review each SFA’s or sponsor’s CFR to ensure that monthly claims are limited to the number of meals served to eligible children and that the cost of the fresh fruits and vegetables are allowable. Once the claims are approved, claims are reimbursed based on the rates that are programmed in the CNPWeb system. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested CFRs for the CNC and found instances that did not align with program regulations for NSLP, FFVP, and SFSP, as follows: National School Lunch Program CNS must perform procedures as outlined in Federal regulations, including a review of CFRs on a monthly basis through analysis utilizing a product of the enrollment information from the month of October multiplied by the days of operation and the attendance factor employed by the SFA. OSA procedures identified that CNS did not review or perform analysis on CFRs on a monthly basis as required. OSA tested 60 CFRs and identified nine CFRs from five SFAs where eligibility information entered on the CFR varied significantly from the information provided and verified by the SFA in October 2023. In order to verify the allowability of the claims identified, OSA requested supporting documentation from those five SFAs. OSA compared the eligibility counts from the CFR, the SFA’s POS reports, the SFA’s October data provided to CNS, and the SFA’s master list of eligible students for the month of the CFR and found: • five POS reports with eligibility counts that conflicted with the master eligibility list provided by the SFA for that month, and with the number of eligible children reported on the CFR, resulting in questioned costs totaling $897; • one POS report from October with eligibility counts that matched the site CFR, but did not match the master eligibility list provided by the SFA, or the data reported to CNS by the SFA for the same month, resulting in questioned costs totaling $708; and • documentation for three CFRs could not be provided. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program CNS ensures compliance with Federal regulations through the annual administrative review process. OSA tested 17 FFVP CFRs from the nine SFAs who had an administrative review in fiscal year 2024 and found: • nine claims from five SFAs had sites with nonfood costs that were not reviewed during the administrative review process. • for six of the nine SFAs, portions of the administrative review process were erroneously omitted; therefore, CNS did not review or examine the allowability for any FFVP CFRs for those six SFAs. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. The FFVP fiscal year is October 1 to September 30; therefore, though schools may begin the school year with unspent funds from the prior school year, these funds must be spent by September 30. OSA tested 19 FFVP SFAs that participated in both fiscal year 2023 and 2024 and found that three SFAs exceeded their fiscal year 2023 allocation in September 2023. CNS did not detect or correct this allocation issue until OSA inquired in September 2024. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Section 19 of the Richard B. Russell NSLA requires that FFVP allocations made by CNS result in a per-pupil grant not less than $50, nor more than $75 to participating SFAs. OSA tested 19 SFAs that participated in FFVP in fiscal year 2024 and found that 14 SFAs had manual allocation adjustments which resulted in ten per-pupil allocations that were not between $50 and $75 per pupil, ranging from $24 per pupil to $109 per pupil. The allocation of funds over $75 per pupil resulted in questioned costs of $9,535. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Summer Food Service Program CNS requires applications from sponsors that include individual site sheets. The information on the sheet must include the estimated number of meals, types of meals to be served, and meal service times. Meal service times must align with the approved application at the time the meals are served. Non-congregate sites must provide enough detail to ensure the area where the site proposes to serve meets certain criteria, including verification that the site: • is rural; • is not or will not be served in whole or in part by another site; • serves an area in which poor economic conditions exist or is approved for reimbursement only for meals served free to enrolled children who meet income standards; and • has procedures to ensure that duplicate meals are not served to any child. Residential and non-residential camps must include in their site sheets the number of children enrolled in each session who meet income standards prior to filing the camp’s CFR for each session. OSA tested 39 SFSP CFRs and found: • nine residential or non-residential camp CFRs that did not include the number of children enrolled in each session who met income standards prior to filing their CFR, resulting in questioned costs totaling $95,902. • two CFRs to non-congregate sites not located in an area where poor economic conditions exist per USDA data. The ineligible sites resulted in questioned costs totaling $15,536. • four CFRs included revised information from the site sheet that did not reflect the conditions at the time the meals were served. The revisions submitted between the meal service and submission of the CFR included an increase in capacity, an addition of meal types, and an addition of operating days, resulting in questioned costs totaling $5,821. • five CFRs to non-congregate sites that did not have documented procedures to prevent duplicate meal service on the site sheet. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Additionally, SFSP has two tiers of administrative rates for reimbursement, self-prep and vended. Sites classified as rural are all reimbursed at the highest rate, but sites classified as urban can either be reimbursed at the higher rate if they serve self-prep meals, or at the lower rate if their meals are vended. CNS previously determined that the field on the application for the sponsor to select whether the meal served is vended or self-prep is not required in the CNPWeb system. At that time, CNS submitted a ticket to request a change to the CNPWeb system to require the sponsor to select a meal type in that field on future applications; however, because that information was not required previously, CNS does not have assurance that urban sites that did not select self-prep or vended are being reimbursed at the correct rate. Furthermore, for each month of operation, CNS must report the number of meals served by meal type and sponsor type to USDA Food Nutrition Services (FNS) on the FNS-418 report. CNS does not have assurance that their default classification of urban sites as self-prep when the field was left blank is accurate for FNS-418 reporting. Context: In fiscal year 2024, CNS processed CFRs totaling: • $55.8 million under NSLP; • $2.8 million under FFVP; and • $2.8 million under SFSP. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Potential incorrect rates of reimbursement paid to SFAs and sponsors • Inaccurate FNS-418 reports submitted to FNS Recommendation: We recommend that CNS enhance policies and procedures to: • require a review of CFRs on a monthly basis in accordance with Federal regulations; • ensure all required information is included in the applications and approved prior to participation; • review and approve area eligibility for non-congregate sites; • require inclusion of self-prep or vended meal types and non-congregate plans on site information sheets that document procedures to prevent duplicate meal service; • ensure session-specific eligibility information is received prior to claim approval for camp sites; and • ensure that site information sheet revisions prohibit the sponsor from using the revised information in a claim for the prior month. In addition, we recommend that CNS enhance oversight over FFVP to ensure: • claims with nonfood costs are reasonable; • allocation amounts remain within $50 to $75 per pupil; and • administrative reviews conducted by CNS include FFVP allowability reviews. Corrective Action Plan: See F-16 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. These findings come from various programs and are correctly outlined in the Condition. However, the Department disagrees with the first bullet in the Recommendation regarding the review of CFRs monthly and has contacted the Northeast Regional Office of the USDA for clarification. Additionally, we disagree with the first bullet point regarding non-food costs in the FFVP program, as it’s addressed in the Administrative Review process. The Department has developed a corrective action plan to address the remaining recommendations. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: 7 CFR 210.8(b)(2) provides detailed requirements outlining the minimum CFR monthly claim review procedures that CNS must perform. CNS has not implemented required procedures, and erroneous CFRs are not detected or corrected, resulting in questioned costs and potential disallowances. In addition, CNS asserts that FFVP nonfood costs are addressed as part of the Administrative Review process; however, OSA identified a material weakness and material noncompliance as issued in finding 2024-032 Internal control over CNC subrecipient monitoring procedures needs improvement. The finding reports that six of the nine Administrative Reviews tested for FFVP inappropriately omitted Federally required steps and that a cost analysis over nonfood costs was not performed. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1203-02)

(2024-031) Title: Internal control over CNC claim reimbursements needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Reporting Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 10.555 $1,605 ALN 10.582 $9,535 ALN 10.559 $117,259 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; due to the variety of site types in the test population and varied meal claim counts, an error rate cannot be applied to the population and a projection of questioned costs cannot be reasonably estimated. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 7 CFR 210.7 and .8; 7 CFR 225.6, .9, and .16; Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, Section 19; U.S. Department of Agriculture Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Handbook The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. 7 CFR 210.7 National School Lunch Program (NSLP) claims for reimbursement (CFRs) must be based on lunch counts taken daily at the point of service (POS), which correctly identify the number of free, reduced price, and paid lunches served to eligible children. 7 CFR 210.8 (NSLP) on a monthly basis, the State agency shall, at a minimum, compare the number of free and reduced price lunches claimed to the number of children approved for free and reduced price lunches enrolled in the School Food Authority (SFA) for the month of October, and multiply that number by the days of operation and the attendance factor employed by the SFA. At its discretion, the State agency may conduct this comparison against data which reflects the number of children approved for free and reduced price lunches for a more current month(s). 7 CFR 225.6 Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) required information must be on a site information sheet that the State agency must provide to the sponsor for approval by the State agency prior to participation in SFSP, including estimated meal counts, types of meals, meal service times, and procedures to ensure duplicate meals are not distributed at non-congregate sites. In order to approve a site, the area where the site proposes to serve is not or will not be served in whole or in part by another site. 7 CFR 225.9 (SFSP) outlines that payments to a sponsor must equal the amount derived by multiplying the number of eligible meals, by type, actually served under the sponsor's program to eligible children by the current applicable reimbursement rate for each meal type. Sponsors must be eligible to receive additional reimbursement for each meal served to participating children at rural or self-preparation sites. 7 CFR 225.16 (SFSP) meals served outside of the meal time listed on the sponsor’s application are not eligible for reimbursement. Sponsors agree in writing to claim reimbursement only for the types of meals specified in the agreement that are served. Section 19 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA) states that the per-pupil grant provided to a school under the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP) shall be not less than $50, nor more than $75. U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) FFVP Handbook, referenced as guidance in Policy Memo SP 17-2023, states that all nonfood costs must be carefully reviewed and deemed reasonable. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) includes the School Breakfast Program, NSLP, Special Milk Program for Children, SFSP and FFVP. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools, residential childcare institutions and summer food programs; to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools; and to encourage the consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department of Education (DOE) is responsible for the administration of child nutrition programs for the State. DOE provides benefits to each SFA or sponsor on a reimbursement basis. SFAs and sponsors must submit claims for reimbursement based on actual meals served for the month and permissible fresh fruits and vegetables utilizing the Child Nutrition Program (CNPWeb) system. The Department is required to review each SFA’s or sponsor’s CFR to ensure that monthly claims are limited to the number of meals served to eligible children and that the cost of the fresh fruits and vegetables are allowable. Once the claims are approved, claims are reimbursed based on the rates that are programmed in the CNPWeb system. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested CFRs for the CNC and found instances that did not align with program regulations for NSLP, FFVP, and SFSP, as follows: National School Lunch Program CNS must perform procedures as outlined in Federal regulations, including a review of CFRs on a monthly basis through analysis utilizing a product of the enrollment information from the month of October multiplied by the days of operation and the attendance factor employed by the SFA. OSA procedures identified that CNS did not review or perform analysis on CFRs on a monthly basis as required. OSA tested 60 CFRs and identified nine CFRs from five SFAs where eligibility information entered on the CFR varied significantly from the information provided and verified by the SFA in October 2023. In order to verify the allowability of the claims identified, OSA requested supporting documentation from those five SFAs. OSA compared the eligibility counts from the CFR, the SFA’s POS reports, the SFA’s October data provided to CNS, and the SFA’s master list of eligible students for the month of the CFR and found: • five POS reports with eligibility counts that conflicted with the master eligibility list provided by the SFA for that month, and with the number of eligible children reported on the CFR, resulting in questioned costs totaling $897; • one POS report from October with eligibility counts that matched the site CFR, but did not match the master eligibility list provided by the SFA, or the data reported to CNS by the SFA for the same month, resulting in questioned costs totaling $708; and • documentation for three CFRs could not be provided. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program CNS ensures compliance with Federal regulations through the annual administrative review process. OSA tested 17 FFVP CFRs from the nine SFAs who had an administrative review in fiscal year 2024 and found: • nine claims from five SFAs had sites with nonfood costs that were not reviewed during the administrative review process. • for six of the nine SFAs, portions of the administrative review process were erroneously omitted; therefore, CNS did not review or examine the allowability for any FFVP CFRs for those six SFAs. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. The FFVP fiscal year is October 1 to September 30; therefore, though schools may begin the school year with unspent funds from the prior school year, these funds must be spent by September 30. OSA tested 19 FFVP SFAs that participated in both fiscal year 2023 and 2024 and found that three SFAs exceeded their fiscal year 2023 allocation in September 2023. CNS did not detect or correct this allocation issue until OSA inquired in September 2024. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Section 19 of the Richard B. Russell NSLA requires that FFVP allocations made by CNS result in a per-pupil grant not less than $50, nor more than $75 to participating SFAs. OSA tested 19 SFAs that participated in FFVP in fiscal year 2024 and found that 14 SFAs had manual allocation adjustments which resulted in ten per-pupil allocations that were not between $50 and $75 per pupil, ranging from $24 per pupil to $109 per pupil. The allocation of funds over $75 per pupil resulted in questioned costs of $9,535. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Summer Food Service Program CNS requires applications from sponsors that include individual site sheets. The information on the sheet must include the estimated number of meals, types of meals to be served, and meal service times. Meal service times must align with the approved application at the time the meals are served. Non-congregate sites must provide enough detail to ensure the area where the site proposes to serve meets certain criteria, including verification that the site: • is rural; • is not or will not be served in whole or in part by another site; • serves an area in which poor economic conditions exist or is approved for reimbursement only for meals served free to enrolled children who meet income standards; and • has procedures to ensure that duplicate meals are not served to any child. Residential and non-residential camps must include in their site sheets the number of children enrolled in each session who meet income standards prior to filing the camp’s CFR for each session. OSA tested 39 SFSP CFRs and found: • nine residential or non-residential camp CFRs that did not include the number of children enrolled in each session who met income standards prior to filing their CFR, resulting in questioned costs totaling $95,902. • two CFRs to non-congregate sites not located in an area where poor economic conditions exist per USDA data. The ineligible sites resulted in questioned costs totaling $15,536. • four CFRs included revised information from the site sheet that did not reflect the conditions at the time the meals were served. The revisions submitted between the meal service and submission of the CFR included an increase in capacity, an addition of meal types, and an addition of operating days, resulting in questioned costs totaling $5,821. • five CFRs to non-congregate sites that did not have documented procedures to prevent duplicate meal service on the site sheet. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Additionally, SFSP has two tiers of administrative rates for reimbursement, self-prep and vended. Sites classified as rural are all reimbursed at the highest rate, but sites classified as urban can either be reimbursed at the higher rate if they serve self-prep meals, or at the lower rate if their meals are vended. CNS previously determined that the field on the application for the sponsor to select whether the meal served is vended or self-prep is not required in the CNPWeb system. At that time, CNS submitted a ticket to request a change to the CNPWeb system to require the sponsor to select a meal type in that field on future applications; however, because that information was not required previously, CNS does not have assurance that urban sites that did not select self-prep or vended are being reimbursed at the correct rate. Furthermore, for each month of operation, CNS must report the number of meals served by meal type and sponsor type to USDA Food Nutrition Services (FNS) on the FNS-418 report. CNS does not have assurance that their default classification of urban sites as self-prep when the field was left blank is accurate for FNS-418 reporting. Context: In fiscal year 2024, CNS processed CFRs totaling: • $55.8 million under NSLP; • $2.8 million under FFVP; and • $2.8 million under SFSP. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Potential incorrect rates of reimbursement paid to SFAs and sponsors • Inaccurate FNS-418 reports submitted to FNS Recommendation: We recommend that CNS enhance policies and procedures to: • require a review of CFRs on a monthly basis in accordance with Federal regulations; • ensure all required information is included in the applications and approved prior to participation; • review and approve area eligibility for non-congregate sites; • require inclusion of self-prep or vended meal types and non-congregate plans on site information sheets that document procedures to prevent duplicate meal service; • ensure session-specific eligibility information is received prior to claim approval for camp sites; and • ensure that site information sheet revisions prohibit the sponsor from using the revised information in a claim for the prior month. In addition, we recommend that CNS enhance oversight over FFVP to ensure: • claims with nonfood costs are reasonable; • allocation amounts remain within $50 to $75 per pupil; and • administrative reviews conducted by CNS include FFVP allowability reviews. Corrective Action Plan: See F-16 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. These findings come from various programs and are correctly outlined in the Condition. However, the Department disagrees with the first bullet in the Recommendation regarding the review of CFRs monthly and has contacted the Northeast Regional Office of the USDA for clarification. Additionally, we disagree with the first bullet point regarding non-food costs in the FFVP program, as it’s addressed in the Administrative Review process. The Department has developed a corrective action plan to address the remaining recommendations. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: 7 CFR 210.8(b)(2) provides detailed requirements outlining the minimum CFR monthly claim review procedures that CNS must perform. CNS has not implemented required procedures, and erroneous CFRs are not detected or corrected, resulting in questioned costs and potential disallowances. In addition, CNS asserts that FFVP nonfood costs are addressed as part of the Administrative Review process; however, OSA identified a material weakness and material noncompliance as issued in finding 2024-032 Internal control over CNC subrecipient monitoring procedures needs improvement. The finding reports that six of the nine Administrative Reviews tested for FFVP inappropriately omitted Federally required steps and that a cost analysis over nonfood costs was not performed. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1203-02)

(2024-031) Title: Internal control over CNC claim reimbursements needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Reporting Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 10.555 $1,605 ALN 10.582 $9,535 ALN 10.559 $117,259 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; due to the variety of site types in the test population and varied meal claim counts, an error rate cannot be applied to the population and a projection of questioned costs cannot be reasonably estimated. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 7 CFR 210.7 and .8; 7 CFR 225.6, .9, and .16; Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, Section 19; U.S. Department of Agriculture Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Handbook The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. 7 CFR 210.7 National School Lunch Program (NSLP) claims for reimbursement (CFRs) must be based on lunch counts taken daily at the point of service (POS), which correctly identify the number of free, reduced price, and paid lunches served to eligible children. 7 CFR 210.8 (NSLP) on a monthly basis, the State agency shall, at a minimum, compare the number of free and reduced price lunches claimed to the number of children approved for free and reduced price lunches enrolled in the School Food Authority (SFA) for the month of October, and multiply that number by the days of operation and the attendance factor employed by the SFA. At its discretion, the State agency may conduct this comparison against data which reflects the number of children approved for free and reduced price lunches for a more current month(s). 7 CFR 225.6 Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) required information must be on a site information sheet that the State agency must provide to the sponsor for approval by the State agency prior to participation in SFSP, including estimated meal counts, types of meals, meal service times, and procedures to ensure duplicate meals are not distributed at non-congregate sites. In order to approve a site, the area where the site proposes to serve is not or will not be served in whole or in part by another site. 7 CFR 225.9 (SFSP) outlines that payments to a sponsor must equal the amount derived by multiplying the number of eligible meals, by type, actually served under the sponsor's program to eligible children by the current applicable reimbursement rate for each meal type. Sponsors must be eligible to receive additional reimbursement for each meal served to participating children at rural or self-preparation sites. 7 CFR 225.16 (SFSP) meals served outside of the meal time listed on the sponsor’s application are not eligible for reimbursement. Sponsors agree in writing to claim reimbursement only for the types of meals specified in the agreement that are served. Section 19 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA) states that the per-pupil grant provided to a school under the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP) shall be not less than $50, nor more than $75. U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) FFVP Handbook, referenced as guidance in Policy Memo SP 17-2023, states that all nonfood costs must be carefully reviewed and deemed reasonable. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) includes the School Breakfast Program, NSLP, Special Milk Program for Children, SFSP and FFVP. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools, residential childcare institutions and summer food programs; to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools; and to encourage the consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department of Education (DOE) is responsible for the administration of child nutrition programs for the State. DOE provides benefits to each SFA or sponsor on a reimbursement basis. SFAs and sponsors must submit claims for reimbursement based on actual meals served for the month and permissible fresh fruits and vegetables utilizing the Child Nutrition Program (CNPWeb) system. The Department is required to review each SFA’s or sponsor’s CFR to ensure that monthly claims are limited to the number of meals served to eligible children and that the cost of the fresh fruits and vegetables are allowable. Once the claims are approved, claims are reimbursed based on the rates that are programmed in the CNPWeb system. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested CFRs for the CNC and found instances that did not align with program regulations for NSLP, FFVP, and SFSP, as follows: National School Lunch Program CNS must perform procedures as outlined in Federal regulations, including a review of CFRs on a monthly basis through analysis utilizing a product of the enrollment information from the month of October multiplied by the days of operation and the attendance factor employed by the SFA. OSA procedures identified that CNS did not review or perform analysis on CFRs on a monthly basis as required. OSA tested 60 CFRs and identified nine CFRs from five SFAs where eligibility information entered on the CFR varied significantly from the information provided and verified by the SFA in October 2023. In order to verify the allowability of the claims identified, OSA requested supporting documentation from those five SFAs. OSA compared the eligibility counts from the CFR, the SFA’s POS reports, the SFA’s October data provided to CNS, and the SFA’s master list of eligible students for the month of the CFR and found: • five POS reports with eligibility counts that conflicted with the master eligibility list provided by the SFA for that month, and with the number of eligible children reported on the CFR, resulting in questioned costs totaling $897; • one POS report from October with eligibility counts that matched the site CFR, but did not match the master eligibility list provided by the SFA, or the data reported to CNS by the SFA for the same month, resulting in questioned costs totaling $708; and • documentation for three CFRs could not be provided. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program CNS ensures compliance with Federal regulations through the annual administrative review process. OSA tested 17 FFVP CFRs from the nine SFAs who had an administrative review in fiscal year 2024 and found: • nine claims from five SFAs had sites with nonfood costs that were not reviewed during the administrative review process. • for six of the nine SFAs, portions of the administrative review process were erroneously omitted; therefore, CNS did not review or examine the allowability for any FFVP CFRs for those six SFAs. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. The FFVP fiscal year is October 1 to September 30; therefore, though schools may begin the school year with unspent funds from the prior school year, these funds must be spent by September 30. OSA tested 19 FFVP SFAs that participated in both fiscal year 2023 and 2024 and found that three SFAs exceeded their fiscal year 2023 allocation in September 2023. CNS did not detect or correct this allocation issue until OSA inquired in September 2024. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Section 19 of the Richard B. Russell NSLA requires that FFVP allocations made by CNS result in a per-pupil grant not less than $50, nor more than $75 to participating SFAs. OSA tested 19 SFAs that participated in FFVP in fiscal year 2024 and found that 14 SFAs had manual allocation adjustments which resulted in ten per-pupil allocations that were not between $50 and $75 per pupil, ranging from $24 per pupil to $109 per pupil. The allocation of funds over $75 per pupil resulted in questioned costs of $9,535. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Summer Food Service Program CNS requires applications from sponsors that include individual site sheets. The information on the sheet must include the estimated number of meals, types of meals to be served, and meal service times. Meal service times must align with the approved application at the time the meals are served. Non-congregate sites must provide enough detail to ensure the area where the site proposes to serve meets certain criteria, including verification that the site: • is rural; • is not or will not be served in whole or in part by another site; • serves an area in which poor economic conditions exist or is approved for reimbursement only for meals served free to enrolled children who meet income standards; and • has procedures to ensure that duplicate meals are not served to any child. Residential and non-residential camps must include in their site sheets the number of children enrolled in each session who meet income standards prior to filing the camp’s CFR for each session. OSA tested 39 SFSP CFRs and found: • nine residential or non-residential camp CFRs that did not include the number of children enrolled in each session who met income standards prior to filing their CFR, resulting in questioned costs totaling $95,902. • two CFRs to non-congregate sites not located in an area where poor economic conditions exist per USDA data. The ineligible sites resulted in questioned costs totaling $15,536. • four CFRs included revised information from the site sheet that did not reflect the conditions at the time the meals were served. The revisions submitted between the meal service and submission of the CFR included an increase in capacity, an addition of meal types, and an addition of operating days, resulting in questioned costs totaling $5,821. • five CFRs to non-congregate sites that did not have documented procedures to prevent duplicate meal service on the site sheet. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Additionally, SFSP has two tiers of administrative rates for reimbursement, self-prep and vended. Sites classified as rural are all reimbursed at the highest rate, but sites classified as urban can either be reimbursed at the higher rate if they serve self-prep meals, or at the lower rate if their meals are vended. CNS previously determined that the field on the application for the sponsor to select whether the meal served is vended or self-prep is not required in the CNPWeb system. At that time, CNS submitted a ticket to request a change to the CNPWeb system to require the sponsor to select a meal type in that field on future applications; however, because that information was not required previously, CNS does not have assurance that urban sites that did not select self-prep or vended are being reimbursed at the correct rate. Furthermore, for each month of operation, CNS must report the number of meals served by meal type and sponsor type to USDA Food Nutrition Services (FNS) on the FNS-418 report. CNS does not have assurance that their default classification of urban sites as self-prep when the field was left blank is accurate for FNS-418 reporting. Context: In fiscal year 2024, CNS processed CFRs totaling: • $55.8 million under NSLP; • $2.8 million under FFVP; and • $2.8 million under SFSP. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Potential incorrect rates of reimbursement paid to SFAs and sponsors • Inaccurate FNS-418 reports submitted to FNS Recommendation: We recommend that CNS enhance policies and procedures to: • require a review of CFRs on a monthly basis in accordance with Federal regulations; • ensure all required information is included in the applications and approved prior to participation; • review and approve area eligibility for non-congregate sites; • require inclusion of self-prep or vended meal types and non-congregate plans on site information sheets that document procedures to prevent duplicate meal service; • ensure session-specific eligibility information is received prior to claim approval for camp sites; and • ensure that site information sheet revisions prohibit the sponsor from using the revised information in a claim for the prior month. In addition, we recommend that CNS enhance oversight over FFVP to ensure: • claims with nonfood costs are reasonable; • allocation amounts remain within $50 to $75 per pupil; and • administrative reviews conducted by CNS include FFVP allowability reviews. Corrective Action Plan: See F-16 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. These findings come from various programs and are correctly outlined in the Condition. However, the Department disagrees with the first bullet in the Recommendation regarding the review of CFRs monthly and has contacted the Northeast Regional Office of the USDA for clarification. Additionally, we disagree with the first bullet point regarding non-food costs in the FFVP program, as it’s addressed in the Administrative Review process. The Department has developed a corrective action plan to address the remaining recommendations. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: 7 CFR 210.8(b)(2) provides detailed requirements outlining the minimum CFR monthly claim review procedures that CNS must perform. CNS has not implemented required procedures, and erroneous CFRs are not detected or corrected, resulting in questioned costs and potential disallowances. In addition, CNS asserts that FFVP nonfood costs are addressed as part of the Administrative Review process; however, OSA identified a material weakness and material noncompliance as issued in finding 2024-032 Internal control over CNC subrecipient monitoring procedures needs improvement. The finding reports that six of the nine Administrative Reviews tested for FFVP inappropriately omitted Federally required steps and that a cost analysis over nonfood costs was not performed. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1203-02)

(2024-031) Title: Internal control over CNC claim reimbursements needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Reporting Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 10.555 $1,605 ALN 10.582 $9,535 ALN 10.559 $117,259 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; due to the variety of site types in the test population and varied meal claim counts, an error rate cannot be applied to the population and a projection of questioned costs cannot be reasonably estimated. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 7 CFR 210.7 and .8; 7 CFR 225.6, .9, and .16; Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, Section 19; U.S. Department of Agriculture Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Handbook The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. 7 CFR 210.7 National School Lunch Program (NSLP) claims for reimbursement (CFRs) must be based on lunch counts taken daily at the point of service (POS), which correctly identify the number of free, reduced price, and paid lunches served to eligible children. 7 CFR 210.8 (NSLP) on a monthly basis, the State agency shall, at a minimum, compare the number of free and reduced price lunches claimed to the number of children approved for free and reduced price lunches enrolled in the School Food Authority (SFA) for the month of October, and multiply that number by the days of operation and the attendance factor employed by the SFA. At its discretion, the State agency may conduct this comparison against data which reflects the number of children approved for free and reduced price lunches for a more current month(s). 7 CFR 225.6 Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) required information must be on a site information sheet that the State agency must provide to the sponsor for approval by the State agency prior to participation in SFSP, including estimated meal counts, types of meals, meal service times, and procedures to ensure duplicate meals are not distributed at non-congregate sites. In order to approve a site, the area where the site proposes to serve is not or will not be served in whole or in part by another site. 7 CFR 225.9 (SFSP) outlines that payments to a sponsor must equal the amount derived by multiplying the number of eligible meals, by type, actually served under the sponsor's program to eligible children by the current applicable reimbursement rate for each meal type. Sponsors must be eligible to receive additional reimbursement for each meal served to participating children at rural or self-preparation sites. 7 CFR 225.16 (SFSP) meals served outside of the meal time listed on the sponsor’s application are not eligible for reimbursement. Sponsors agree in writing to claim reimbursement only for the types of meals specified in the agreement that are served. Section 19 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA) states that the per-pupil grant provided to a school under the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP) shall be not less than $50, nor more than $75. U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) FFVP Handbook, referenced as guidance in Policy Memo SP 17-2023, states that all nonfood costs must be carefully reviewed and deemed reasonable. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) includes the School Breakfast Program, NSLP, Special Milk Program for Children, SFSP and FFVP. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools, residential childcare institutions and summer food programs; to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools; and to encourage the consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department of Education (DOE) is responsible for the administration of child nutrition programs for the State. DOE provides benefits to each SFA or sponsor on a reimbursement basis. SFAs and sponsors must submit claims for reimbursement based on actual meals served for the month and permissible fresh fruits and vegetables utilizing the Child Nutrition Program (CNPWeb) system. The Department is required to review each SFA’s or sponsor’s CFR to ensure that monthly claims are limited to the number of meals served to eligible children and that the cost of the fresh fruits and vegetables are allowable. Once the claims are approved, claims are reimbursed based on the rates that are programmed in the CNPWeb system. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested CFRs for the CNC and found instances that did not align with program regulations for NSLP, FFVP, and SFSP, as follows: National School Lunch Program CNS must perform procedures as outlined in Federal regulations, including a review of CFRs on a monthly basis through analysis utilizing a product of the enrollment information from the month of October multiplied by the days of operation and the attendance factor employed by the SFA. OSA procedures identified that CNS did not review or perform analysis on CFRs on a monthly basis as required. OSA tested 60 CFRs and identified nine CFRs from five SFAs where eligibility information entered on the CFR varied significantly from the information provided and verified by the SFA in October 2023. In order to verify the allowability of the claims identified, OSA requested supporting documentation from those five SFAs. OSA compared the eligibility counts from the CFR, the SFA’s POS reports, the SFA’s October data provided to CNS, and the SFA’s master list of eligible students for the month of the CFR and found: • five POS reports with eligibility counts that conflicted with the master eligibility list provided by the SFA for that month, and with the number of eligible children reported on the CFR, resulting in questioned costs totaling $897; • one POS report from October with eligibility counts that matched the site CFR, but did not match the master eligibility list provided by the SFA, or the data reported to CNS by the SFA for the same month, resulting in questioned costs totaling $708; and • documentation for three CFRs could not be provided. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program CNS ensures compliance with Federal regulations through the annual administrative review process. OSA tested 17 FFVP CFRs from the nine SFAs who had an administrative review in fiscal year 2024 and found: • nine claims from five SFAs had sites with nonfood costs that were not reviewed during the administrative review process. • for six of the nine SFAs, portions of the administrative review process were erroneously omitted; therefore, CNS did not review or examine the allowability for any FFVP CFRs for those six SFAs. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. The FFVP fiscal year is October 1 to September 30; therefore, though schools may begin the school year with unspent funds from the prior school year, these funds must be spent by September 30. OSA tested 19 FFVP SFAs that participated in both fiscal year 2023 and 2024 and found that three SFAs exceeded their fiscal year 2023 allocation in September 2023. CNS did not detect or correct this allocation issue until OSA inquired in September 2024. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Section 19 of the Richard B. Russell NSLA requires that FFVP allocations made by CNS result in a per-pupil grant not less than $50, nor more than $75 to participating SFAs. OSA tested 19 SFAs that participated in FFVP in fiscal year 2024 and found that 14 SFAs had manual allocation adjustments which resulted in ten per-pupil allocations that were not between $50 and $75 per pupil, ranging from $24 per pupil to $109 per pupil. The allocation of funds over $75 per pupil resulted in questioned costs of $9,535. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Summer Food Service Program CNS requires applications from sponsors that include individual site sheets. The information on the sheet must include the estimated number of meals, types of meals to be served, and meal service times. Meal service times must align with the approved application at the time the meals are served. Non-congregate sites must provide enough detail to ensure the area where the site proposes to serve meets certain criteria, including verification that the site: • is rural; • is not or will not be served in whole or in part by another site; • serves an area in which poor economic conditions exist or is approved for reimbursement only for meals served free to enrolled children who meet income standards; and • has procedures to ensure that duplicate meals are not served to any child. Residential and non-residential camps must include in their site sheets the number of children enrolled in each session who meet income standards prior to filing the camp’s CFR for each session. OSA tested 39 SFSP CFRs and found: • nine residential or non-residential camp CFRs that did not include the number of children enrolled in each session who met income standards prior to filing their CFR, resulting in questioned costs totaling $95,902. • two CFRs to non-congregate sites not located in an area where poor economic conditions exist per USDA data. The ineligible sites resulted in questioned costs totaling $15,536. • four CFRs included revised information from the site sheet that did not reflect the conditions at the time the meals were served. The revisions submitted between the meal service and submission of the CFR included an increase in capacity, an addition of meal types, and an addition of operating days, resulting in questioned costs totaling $5,821. • five CFRs to non-congregate sites that did not have documented procedures to prevent duplicate meal service on the site sheet. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Additionally, SFSP has two tiers of administrative rates for reimbursement, self-prep and vended. Sites classified as rural are all reimbursed at the highest rate, but sites classified as urban can either be reimbursed at the higher rate if they serve self-prep meals, or at the lower rate if their meals are vended. CNS previously determined that the field on the application for the sponsor to select whether the meal served is vended or self-prep is not required in the CNPWeb system. At that time, CNS submitted a ticket to request a change to the CNPWeb system to require the sponsor to select a meal type in that field on future applications; however, because that information was not required previously, CNS does not have assurance that urban sites that did not select self-prep or vended are being reimbursed at the correct rate. Furthermore, for each month of operation, CNS must report the number of meals served by meal type and sponsor type to USDA Food Nutrition Services (FNS) on the FNS-418 report. CNS does not have assurance that their default classification of urban sites as self-prep when the field was left blank is accurate for FNS-418 reporting. Context: In fiscal year 2024, CNS processed CFRs totaling: • $55.8 million under NSLP; • $2.8 million under FFVP; and • $2.8 million under SFSP. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Potential incorrect rates of reimbursement paid to SFAs and sponsors • Inaccurate FNS-418 reports submitted to FNS Recommendation: We recommend that CNS enhance policies and procedures to: • require a review of CFRs on a monthly basis in accordance with Federal regulations; • ensure all required information is included in the applications and approved prior to participation; • review and approve area eligibility for non-congregate sites; • require inclusion of self-prep or vended meal types and non-congregate plans on site information sheets that document procedures to prevent duplicate meal service; • ensure session-specific eligibility information is received prior to claim approval for camp sites; and • ensure that site information sheet revisions prohibit the sponsor from using the revised information in a claim for the prior month. In addition, we recommend that CNS enhance oversight over FFVP to ensure: • claims with nonfood costs are reasonable; • allocation amounts remain within $50 to $75 per pupil; and • administrative reviews conducted by CNS include FFVP allowability reviews. Corrective Action Plan: See F-16 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. These findings come from various programs and are correctly outlined in the Condition. However, the Department disagrees with the first bullet in the Recommendation regarding the review of CFRs monthly and has contacted the Northeast Regional Office of the USDA for clarification. Additionally, we disagree with the first bullet point regarding non-food costs in the FFVP program, as it’s addressed in the Administrative Review process. The Department has developed a corrective action plan to address the remaining recommendations. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: 7 CFR 210.8(b)(2) provides detailed requirements outlining the minimum CFR monthly claim review procedures that CNS must perform. CNS has not implemented required procedures, and erroneous CFRs are not detected or corrected, resulting in questioned costs and potential disallowances. In addition, CNS asserts that FFVP nonfood costs are addressed as part of the Administrative Review process; however, OSA identified a material weakness and material noncompliance as issued in finding 2024-032 Internal control over CNC subrecipient monitoring procedures needs improvement. The finding reports that six of the nine Administrative Reviews tested for FFVP inappropriately omitted Federally required steps and that a cost analysis over nonfood costs was not performed. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1203-02)

(2024-032) Title: Internal control over CNC subrecipient monitoring procedures needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Subrecipient monitoring Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.332; 7 CFR 210.18; 7 CFR 225.7; U.S. Department of Agriculture Policy Memo SP 46-2015 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. The Department must conduct administrative reviews of School Food Authorities (SFAs) participating in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP). These procedures must also be followed, as applicable, to conduct administrative reviews of the afterschool snacks, Special Milk Program (SMP) and the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP). Documented corrective action is required for any degree of violation of general or critical areas identified in an administrative review. Corrective action may be provided at the time of the review; however, it must be postmarked or submitted to the State agency electronically no later than 30 days from the deadline for completion of each required corrective action. The State agency must maintain any documented corrective action on file for review by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). The Department must withhold all program payments to a SFA if: • documented corrective action for critical area violations is not provided with deadlines specified; or • corrective action for critical area violations was not completed. FNS may suspend or withhold program payments, in whole or in part, to those states failing to withhold payments in accordance with regulations and may withhold administrative funds. The Department must review sponsors to ensure compliance with Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) regulations. The Department is required to conduct a review of base year certification and benefit issuance documentation for any SFA requesting approval to participate in NSLP or SBP using U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Special Provision 2, which is a provision established to reduce application burdens and simplify claim procedures. The review must occur at some point during the base year. If errors are identified as a result of the review, the Department must adjust all of the SFA’s closed claims that occurred in the current school year. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) includes the NSLP, SBP, SMP, SFSP, and FFVP. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools and summer food programs; to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools; and to encourage consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department of Education (DOE) is responsible for the administration of child nutrition programs for the State. DOE partners with local SFAs and sponsors to provide benefits to school-aged children. DOE has assigned subrecipient monitoring responsibilities, which include administrative reviews and other reviews as needed, to the Child Nutrition Services (CNS) division. Administrative reviews of all SFAs are required at least once every five years; however, regulations also specify that high-risk SFAs must receive targeted follow-up within two years. CNS utilizes a spreadsheet to track and facilitate the reviews, and a USDA questionnaire to document the completion of the review. CNS does not have a mechanism to centrally track the high-risk SFAs to ensure follow-up occurs. CNS is required to retain documentation to support all elements of the administrative reviews and to demonstrate the SFA’s compliance with the program, even if corrective action occurs onsite during the review. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 29 administrative reviews completed by CNS and found: • Performance Standard 1 findings, deemed critical findings by USDA, were identified in four reviews, but were not tracked for follow-up. In addition, corrective action was not provided within 30 days for one review. • Performance Standard 2 findings, also deemed critical by USDA, were identified in three reviews, but were not tracked for follow-up. In addition, corrective action was not provided within 30 days for two reviews. • corrective action completed onsite was indicated in five reviews; however, CNS could not provide documentation to support the corrective action. • corrective action for three reviews did not fully address the deficiencies noted. • corrective action for two reviews was received more than 30 days late. • 12 reviews were closed; however, corrective action remained outstanding. • one sponsor submitted corrective action in October 2023, but as of audit testing in March 2025, CNS had not notified the sponsor of the approval and had not closed the sponsor’s review. • corrective action submitted from two SFAs was not approved, and the SFAs were not notified until nine months after their submission. • the review tracking spreadsheet was not fully completed or conflicted with information obtained from the administrative review for 16 reviews. • questionnaires were not fully completed for seven reviews. • USDA questionnaire sections related to FFVP and SMP were erroneously excluded for eight reviews. • the date for required corrective action to be provided was omitted for seven reviews. • one review was erroneously excluded from the review tracking spreadsheet. In addition to administrative reviews, CNS must perform base year reviews for all SFAs that have applied to participate in USDA Special Provision 2. These base year reviews provide the required information necessary to determine the level of claims the SFA may submit in the subsequent three years. After completion of the base year review, a letter detailing the results, including any adjustments to previously submitted claims, is provided to the SFA. The SFA is required to adjust claims and enrollment data through the claim revision process and CNS is responsible for verifying that the appropriate revisions have been completed. In fiscal year 2024, CNS identified 17 SFAs that required a base year review. OSA tested four base year reviews and identified three SFAs that did not properly revise claims and enrollment data, and CNS did not verify the accuracy of the revisions completed by the SFAs. In addition, one SFA had an eligibility determination that was not supported by the application. The income amount included in the application exceeded income requirements for reduced-price eligibility, but the SFA categorized the applicant as eligible for reduced-price meals. In the base year review, the application was not recategorized by CNS, and claims were not revised to match the eligibility determination. OSA cannot determine if unallowable costs exist through the audit of subrecipient monitoring activities, as required information was not collected. OSA has questioned costs through the audit of allowable costs/costs principles and eligibility, see findings 2024-031 Internal control over CNC reimbursements needs improvement and 2024-030 Internal control over CNC eligibility needs improvement, respectively. OSA selected non-statistical random samples. Context: In fiscal year 2024, CNC expenditures totaled approximately $68 million, of which $67.6 million was provided to 241 SFAs and sponsors. Cause: • Lack of policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Subrecipients may not be complying with Federal statutes, regulations, or the terms and conditions of the subaward. • Potential questioned costs and disallowances. Base year reviews provide authorization for the level of allowable claims the SFA can claim in subsequent periods. Without a base year review and necessary revisions, SFAs could be underclaiming or overclaiming costs. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement policies and procedures and increase oversight to ensure that: • reviews are completed as required and supporting documentation is retained; • high-risk SFAs are tracked and considered in planning follow-up reviews; • SFAs revise claims appropriately after a base year review; and • CNS verifies that claim adjustments occur as necessary. Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Department will improve tracking and create procedures to evaluate the Administrative Review Processes for the team. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 (State Number: 24-1203-06)

(2024-032) Title: Internal control over CNC subrecipient monitoring procedures needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Subrecipient monitoring Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.332; 7 CFR 210.18; 7 CFR 225.7; U.S. Department of Agriculture Policy Memo SP 46-2015 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. The Department must conduct administrative reviews of School Food Authorities (SFAs) participating in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP). These procedures must also be followed, as applicable, to conduct administrative reviews of the afterschool snacks, Special Milk Program (SMP) and the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP). Documented corrective action is required for any degree of violation of general or critical areas identified in an administrative review. Corrective action may be provided at the time of the review; however, it must be postmarked or submitted to the State agency electronically no later than 30 days from the deadline for completion of each required corrective action. The State agency must maintain any documented corrective action on file for review by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). The Department must withhold all program payments to a SFA if: • documented corrective action for critical area violations is not provided with deadlines specified; or • corrective action for critical area violations was not completed. FNS may suspend or withhold program payments, in whole or in part, to those states failing to withhold payments in accordance with regulations and may withhold administrative funds. The Department must review sponsors to ensure compliance with Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) regulations. The Department is required to conduct a review of base year certification and benefit issuance documentation for any SFA requesting approval to participate in NSLP or SBP using U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Special Provision 2, which is a provision established to reduce application burdens and simplify claim procedures. The review must occur at some point during the base year. If errors are identified as a result of the review, the Department must adjust all of the SFA’s closed claims that occurred in the current school year. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) includes the NSLP, SBP, SMP, SFSP, and FFVP. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools and summer food programs; to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools; and to encourage consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department of Education (DOE) is responsible for the administration of child nutrition programs for the State. DOE partners with local SFAs and sponsors to provide benefits to school-aged children. DOE has assigned subrecipient monitoring responsibilities, which include administrative reviews and other reviews as needed, to the Child Nutrition Services (CNS) division. Administrative reviews of all SFAs are required at least once every five years; however, regulations also specify that high-risk SFAs must receive targeted follow-up within two years. CNS utilizes a spreadsheet to track and facilitate the reviews, and a USDA questionnaire to document the completion of the review. CNS does not have a mechanism to centrally track the high-risk SFAs to ensure follow-up occurs. CNS is required to retain documentation to support all elements of the administrative reviews and to demonstrate the SFA’s compliance with the program, even if corrective action occurs onsite during the review. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 29 administrative reviews completed by CNS and found: • Performance Standard 1 findings, deemed critical findings by USDA, were identified in four reviews, but were not tracked for follow-up. In addition, corrective action was not provided within 30 days for one review. • Performance Standard 2 findings, also deemed critical by USDA, were identified in three reviews, but were not tracked for follow-up. In addition, corrective action was not provided within 30 days for two reviews. • corrective action completed onsite was indicated in five reviews; however, CNS could not provide documentation to support the corrective action. • corrective action for three reviews did not fully address the deficiencies noted. • corrective action for two reviews was received more than 30 days late. • 12 reviews were closed; however, corrective action remained outstanding. • one sponsor submitted corrective action in October 2023, but as of audit testing in March 2025, CNS had not notified the sponsor of the approval and had not closed the sponsor’s review. • corrective action submitted from two SFAs was not approved, and the SFAs were not notified until nine months after their submission. • the review tracking spreadsheet was not fully completed or conflicted with information obtained from the administrative review for 16 reviews. • questionnaires were not fully completed for seven reviews. • USDA questionnaire sections related to FFVP and SMP were erroneously excluded for eight reviews. • the date for required corrective action to be provided was omitted for seven reviews. • one review was erroneously excluded from the review tracking spreadsheet. In addition to administrative reviews, CNS must perform base year reviews for all SFAs that have applied to participate in USDA Special Provision 2. These base year reviews provide the required information necessary to determine the level of claims the SFA may submit in the subsequent three years. After completion of the base year review, a letter detailing the results, including any adjustments to previously submitted claims, is provided to the SFA. The SFA is required to adjust claims and enrollment data through the claim revision process and CNS is responsible for verifying that the appropriate revisions have been completed. In fiscal year 2024, CNS identified 17 SFAs that required a base year review. OSA tested four base year reviews and identified three SFAs that did not properly revise claims and enrollment data, and CNS did not verify the accuracy of the revisions completed by the SFAs. In addition, one SFA had an eligibility determination that was not supported by the application. The income amount included in the application exceeded income requirements for reduced-price eligibility, but the SFA categorized the applicant as eligible for reduced-price meals. In the base year review, the application was not recategorized by CNS, and claims were not revised to match the eligibility determination. OSA cannot determine if unallowable costs exist through the audit of subrecipient monitoring activities, as required information was not collected. OSA has questioned costs through the audit of allowable costs/costs principles and eligibility, see findings 2024-031 Internal control over CNC reimbursements needs improvement and 2024-030 Internal control over CNC eligibility needs improvement, respectively. OSA selected non-statistical random samples. Context: In fiscal year 2024, CNC expenditures totaled approximately $68 million, of which $67.6 million was provided to 241 SFAs and sponsors. Cause: • Lack of policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Subrecipients may not be complying with Federal statutes, regulations, or the terms and conditions of the subaward. • Potential questioned costs and disallowances. Base year reviews provide authorization for the level of allowable claims the SFA can claim in subsequent periods. Without a base year review and necessary revisions, SFAs could be underclaiming or overclaiming costs. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement policies and procedures and increase oversight to ensure that: • reviews are completed as required and supporting documentation is retained; • high-risk SFAs are tracked and considered in planning follow-up reviews; • SFAs revise claims appropriately after a base year review; and • CNS verifies that claim adjustments occur as necessary. Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Department will improve tracking and create procedures to evaluate the Administrative Review Processes for the team. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 (State Number: 24-1203-06)

(2024-032) Title: Internal control over CNC subrecipient monitoring procedures needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Subrecipient monitoring Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.332; 7 CFR 210.18; 7 CFR 225.7; U.S. Department of Agriculture Policy Memo SP 46-2015 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. The Department must conduct administrative reviews of School Food Authorities (SFAs) participating in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP). These procedures must also be followed, as applicable, to conduct administrative reviews of the afterschool snacks, Special Milk Program (SMP) and the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP). Documented corrective action is required for any degree of violation of general or critical areas identified in an administrative review. Corrective action may be provided at the time of the review; however, it must be postmarked or submitted to the State agency electronically no later than 30 days from the deadline for completion of each required corrective action. The State agency must maintain any documented corrective action on file for review by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). The Department must withhold all program payments to a SFA if: • documented corrective action for critical area violations is not provided with deadlines specified; or • corrective action for critical area violations was not completed. FNS may suspend or withhold program payments, in whole or in part, to those states failing to withhold payments in accordance with regulations and may withhold administrative funds. The Department must review sponsors to ensure compliance with Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) regulations. The Department is required to conduct a review of base year certification and benefit issuance documentation for any SFA requesting approval to participate in NSLP or SBP using U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Special Provision 2, which is a provision established to reduce application burdens and simplify claim procedures. The review must occur at some point during the base year. If errors are identified as a result of the review, the Department must adjust all of the SFA’s closed claims that occurred in the current school year. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) includes the NSLP, SBP, SMP, SFSP, and FFVP. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools and summer food programs; to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools; and to encourage consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department of Education (DOE) is responsible for the administration of child nutrition programs for the State. DOE partners with local SFAs and sponsors to provide benefits to school-aged children. DOE has assigned subrecipient monitoring responsibilities, which include administrative reviews and other reviews as needed, to the Child Nutrition Services (CNS) division. Administrative reviews of all SFAs are required at least once every five years; however, regulations also specify that high-risk SFAs must receive targeted follow-up within two years. CNS utilizes a spreadsheet to track and facilitate the reviews, and a USDA questionnaire to document the completion of the review. CNS does not have a mechanism to centrally track the high-risk SFAs to ensure follow-up occurs. CNS is required to retain documentation to support all elements of the administrative reviews and to demonstrate the SFA’s compliance with the program, even if corrective action occurs onsite during the review. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 29 administrative reviews completed by CNS and found: • Performance Standard 1 findings, deemed critical findings by USDA, were identified in four reviews, but were not tracked for follow-up. In addition, corrective action was not provided within 30 days for one review. • Performance Standard 2 findings, also deemed critical by USDA, were identified in three reviews, but were not tracked for follow-up. In addition, corrective action was not provided within 30 days for two reviews. • corrective action completed onsite was indicated in five reviews; however, CNS could not provide documentation to support the corrective action. • corrective action for three reviews did not fully address the deficiencies noted. • corrective action for two reviews was received more than 30 days late. • 12 reviews were closed; however, corrective action remained outstanding. • one sponsor submitted corrective action in October 2023, but as of audit testing in March 2025, CNS had not notified the sponsor of the approval and had not closed the sponsor’s review. • corrective action submitted from two SFAs was not approved, and the SFAs were not notified until nine months after their submission. • the review tracking spreadsheet was not fully completed or conflicted with information obtained from the administrative review for 16 reviews. • questionnaires were not fully completed for seven reviews. • USDA questionnaire sections related to FFVP and SMP were erroneously excluded for eight reviews. • the date for required corrective action to be provided was omitted for seven reviews. • one review was erroneously excluded from the review tracking spreadsheet. In addition to administrative reviews, CNS must perform base year reviews for all SFAs that have applied to participate in USDA Special Provision 2. These base year reviews provide the required information necessary to determine the level of claims the SFA may submit in the subsequent three years. After completion of the base year review, a letter detailing the results, including any adjustments to previously submitted claims, is provided to the SFA. The SFA is required to adjust claims and enrollment data through the claim revision process and CNS is responsible for verifying that the appropriate revisions have been completed. In fiscal year 2024, CNS identified 17 SFAs that required a base year review. OSA tested four base year reviews and identified three SFAs that did not properly revise claims and enrollment data, and CNS did not verify the accuracy of the revisions completed by the SFAs. In addition, one SFA had an eligibility determination that was not supported by the application. The income amount included in the application exceeded income requirements for reduced-price eligibility, but the SFA categorized the applicant as eligible for reduced-price meals. In the base year review, the application was not recategorized by CNS, and claims were not revised to match the eligibility determination. OSA cannot determine if unallowable costs exist through the audit of subrecipient monitoring activities, as required information was not collected. OSA has questioned costs through the audit of allowable costs/costs principles and eligibility, see findings 2024-031 Internal control over CNC reimbursements needs improvement and 2024-030 Internal control over CNC eligibility needs improvement, respectively. OSA selected non-statistical random samples. Context: In fiscal year 2024, CNC expenditures totaled approximately $68 million, of which $67.6 million was provided to 241 SFAs and sponsors. Cause: • Lack of policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Subrecipients may not be complying with Federal statutes, regulations, or the terms and conditions of the subaward. • Potential questioned costs and disallowances. Base year reviews provide authorization for the level of allowable claims the SFA can claim in subsequent periods. Without a base year review and necessary revisions, SFAs could be underclaiming or overclaiming costs. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement policies and procedures and increase oversight to ensure that: • reviews are completed as required and supporting documentation is retained; • high-risk SFAs are tracked and considered in planning follow-up reviews; • SFAs revise claims appropriately after a base year review; and • CNS verifies that claim adjustments occur as necessary. Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Department will improve tracking and create procedures to evaluate the Administrative Review Processes for the team. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 (State Number: 24-1203-06)

(2024-032) Title: Internal control over CNC subrecipient monitoring procedures needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Subrecipient monitoring Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.332; 7 CFR 210.18; 7 CFR 225.7; U.S. Department of Agriculture Policy Memo SP 46-2015 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. The Department must conduct administrative reviews of School Food Authorities (SFAs) participating in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP). These procedures must also be followed, as applicable, to conduct administrative reviews of the afterschool snacks, Special Milk Program (SMP) and the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP). Documented corrective action is required for any degree of violation of general or critical areas identified in an administrative review. Corrective action may be provided at the time of the review; however, it must be postmarked or submitted to the State agency electronically no later than 30 days from the deadline for completion of each required corrective action. The State agency must maintain any documented corrective action on file for review by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). The Department must withhold all program payments to a SFA if: • documented corrective action for critical area violations is not provided with deadlines specified; or • corrective action for critical area violations was not completed. FNS may suspend or withhold program payments, in whole or in part, to those states failing to withhold payments in accordance with regulations and may withhold administrative funds. The Department must review sponsors to ensure compliance with Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) regulations. The Department is required to conduct a review of base year certification and benefit issuance documentation for any SFA requesting approval to participate in NSLP or SBP using U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Special Provision 2, which is a provision established to reduce application burdens and simplify claim procedures. The review must occur at some point during the base year. If errors are identified as a result of the review, the Department must adjust all of the SFA’s closed claims that occurred in the current school year. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) includes the NSLP, SBP, SMP, SFSP, and FFVP. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools and summer food programs; to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools; and to encourage consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department of Education (DOE) is responsible for the administration of child nutrition programs for the State. DOE partners with local SFAs and sponsors to provide benefits to school-aged children. DOE has assigned subrecipient monitoring responsibilities, which include administrative reviews and other reviews as needed, to the Child Nutrition Services (CNS) division. Administrative reviews of all SFAs are required at least once every five years; however, regulations also specify that high-risk SFAs must receive targeted follow-up within two years. CNS utilizes a spreadsheet to track and facilitate the reviews, and a USDA questionnaire to document the completion of the review. CNS does not have a mechanism to centrally track the high-risk SFAs to ensure follow-up occurs. CNS is required to retain documentation to support all elements of the administrative reviews and to demonstrate the SFA’s compliance with the program, even if corrective action occurs onsite during the review. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 29 administrative reviews completed by CNS and found: • Performance Standard 1 findings, deemed critical findings by USDA, were identified in four reviews, but were not tracked for follow-up. In addition, corrective action was not provided within 30 days for one review. • Performance Standard 2 findings, also deemed critical by USDA, were identified in three reviews, but were not tracked for follow-up. In addition, corrective action was not provided within 30 days for two reviews. • corrective action completed onsite was indicated in five reviews; however, CNS could not provide documentation to support the corrective action. • corrective action for three reviews did not fully address the deficiencies noted. • corrective action for two reviews was received more than 30 days late. • 12 reviews were closed; however, corrective action remained outstanding. • one sponsor submitted corrective action in October 2023, but as of audit testing in March 2025, CNS had not notified the sponsor of the approval and had not closed the sponsor’s review. • corrective action submitted from two SFAs was not approved, and the SFAs were not notified until nine months after their submission. • the review tracking spreadsheet was not fully completed or conflicted with information obtained from the administrative review for 16 reviews. • questionnaires were not fully completed for seven reviews. • USDA questionnaire sections related to FFVP and SMP were erroneously excluded for eight reviews. • the date for required corrective action to be provided was omitted for seven reviews. • one review was erroneously excluded from the review tracking spreadsheet. In addition to administrative reviews, CNS must perform base year reviews for all SFAs that have applied to participate in USDA Special Provision 2. These base year reviews provide the required information necessary to determine the level of claims the SFA may submit in the subsequent three years. After completion of the base year review, a letter detailing the results, including any adjustments to previously submitted claims, is provided to the SFA. The SFA is required to adjust claims and enrollment data through the claim revision process and CNS is responsible for verifying that the appropriate revisions have been completed. In fiscal year 2024, CNS identified 17 SFAs that required a base year review. OSA tested four base year reviews and identified three SFAs that did not properly revise claims and enrollment data, and CNS did not verify the accuracy of the revisions completed by the SFAs. In addition, one SFA had an eligibility determination that was not supported by the application. The income amount included in the application exceeded income requirements for reduced-price eligibility, but the SFA categorized the applicant as eligible for reduced-price meals. In the base year review, the application was not recategorized by CNS, and claims were not revised to match the eligibility determination. OSA cannot determine if unallowable costs exist through the audit of subrecipient monitoring activities, as required information was not collected. OSA has questioned costs through the audit of allowable costs/costs principles and eligibility, see findings 2024-031 Internal control over CNC reimbursements needs improvement and 2024-030 Internal control over CNC eligibility needs improvement, respectively. OSA selected non-statistical random samples. Context: In fiscal year 2024, CNC expenditures totaled approximately $68 million, of which $67.6 million was provided to 241 SFAs and sponsors. Cause: • Lack of policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Subrecipients may not be complying with Federal statutes, regulations, or the terms and conditions of the subaward. • Potential questioned costs and disallowances. Base year reviews provide authorization for the level of allowable claims the SFA can claim in subsequent periods. Without a base year review and necessary revisions, SFAs could be underclaiming or overclaiming costs. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement policies and procedures and increase oversight to ensure that: • reviews are completed as required and supporting documentation is retained; • high-risk SFAs are tracked and considered in planning follow-up reviews; • SFAs revise claims appropriately after a base year review; and • CNS verifies that claim adjustments occur as necessary. Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Department will improve tracking and create procedures to evaluate the Administrative Review Processes for the team. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 (State Number: 24-1203-06)

(2024-032) Title: Internal control over CNC subrecipient monitoring procedures needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Subrecipient monitoring Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.332; 7 CFR 210.18; 7 CFR 225.7; U.S. Department of Agriculture Policy Memo SP 46-2015 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. The Department must conduct administrative reviews of School Food Authorities (SFAs) participating in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP). These procedures must also be followed, as applicable, to conduct administrative reviews of the afterschool snacks, Special Milk Program (SMP) and the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP). Documented corrective action is required for any degree of violation of general or critical areas identified in an administrative review. Corrective action may be provided at the time of the review; however, it must be postmarked or submitted to the State agency electronically no later than 30 days from the deadline for completion of each required corrective action. The State agency must maintain any documented corrective action on file for review by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). The Department must withhold all program payments to a SFA if: • documented corrective action for critical area violations is not provided with deadlines specified; or • corrective action for critical area violations was not completed. FNS may suspend or withhold program payments, in whole or in part, to those states failing to withhold payments in accordance with regulations and may withhold administrative funds. The Department must review sponsors to ensure compliance with Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) regulations. The Department is required to conduct a review of base year certification and benefit issuance documentation for any SFA requesting approval to participate in NSLP or SBP using U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Special Provision 2, which is a provision established to reduce application burdens and simplify claim procedures. The review must occur at some point during the base year. If errors are identified as a result of the review, the Department must adjust all of the SFA’s closed claims that occurred in the current school year. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) includes the NSLP, SBP, SMP, SFSP, and FFVP. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools and summer food programs; to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools; and to encourage consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department of Education (DOE) is responsible for the administration of child nutrition programs for the State. DOE partners with local SFAs and sponsors to provide benefits to school-aged children. DOE has assigned subrecipient monitoring responsibilities, which include administrative reviews and other reviews as needed, to the Child Nutrition Services (CNS) division. Administrative reviews of all SFAs are required at least once every five years; however, regulations also specify that high-risk SFAs must receive targeted follow-up within two years. CNS utilizes a spreadsheet to track and facilitate the reviews, and a USDA questionnaire to document the completion of the review. CNS does not have a mechanism to centrally track the high-risk SFAs to ensure follow-up occurs. CNS is required to retain documentation to support all elements of the administrative reviews and to demonstrate the SFA’s compliance with the program, even if corrective action occurs onsite during the review. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 29 administrative reviews completed by CNS and found: • Performance Standard 1 findings, deemed critical findings by USDA, were identified in four reviews, but were not tracked for follow-up. In addition, corrective action was not provided within 30 days for one review. • Performance Standard 2 findings, also deemed critical by USDA, were identified in three reviews, but were not tracked for follow-up. In addition, corrective action was not provided within 30 days for two reviews. • corrective action completed onsite was indicated in five reviews; however, CNS could not provide documentation to support the corrective action. • corrective action for three reviews did not fully address the deficiencies noted. • corrective action for two reviews was received more than 30 days late. • 12 reviews were closed; however, corrective action remained outstanding. • one sponsor submitted corrective action in October 2023, but as of audit testing in March 2025, CNS had not notified the sponsor of the approval and had not closed the sponsor’s review. • corrective action submitted from two SFAs was not approved, and the SFAs were not notified until nine months after their submission. • the review tracking spreadsheet was not fully completed or conflicted with information obtained from the administrative review for 16 reviews. • questionnaires were not fully completed for seven reviews. • USDA questionnaire sections related to FFVP and SMP were erroneously excluded for eight reviews. • the date for required corrective action to be provided was omitted for seven reviews. • one review was erroneously excluded from the review tracking spreadsheet. In addition to administrative reviews, CNS must perform base year reviews for all SFAs that have applied to participate in USDA Special Provision 2. These base year reviews provide the required information necessary to determine the level of claims the SFA may submit in the subsequent three years. After completion of the base year review, a letter detailing the results, including any adjustments to previously submitted claims, is provided to the SFA. The SFA is required to adjust claims and enrollment data through the claim revision process and CNS is responsible for verifying that the appropriate revisions have been completed. In fiscal year 2024, CNS identified 17 SFAs that required a base year review. OSA tested four base year reviews and identified three SFAs that did not properly revise claims and enrollment data, and CNS did not verify the accuracy of the revisions completed by the SFAs. In addition, one SFA had an eligibility determination that was not supported by the application. The income amount included in the application exceeded income requirements for reduced-price eligibility, but the SFA categorized the applicant as eligible for reduced-price meals. In the base year review, the application was not recategorized by CNS, and claims were not revised to match the eligibility determination. OSA cannot determine if unallowable costs exist through the audit of subrecipient monitoring activities, as required information was not collected. OSA has questioned costs through the audit of allowable costs/costs principles and eligibility, see findings 2024-031 Internal control over CNC reimbursements needs improvement and 2024-030 Internal control over CNC eligibility needs improvement, respectively. OSA selected non-statistical random samples. Context: In fiscal year 2024, CNC expenditures totaled approximately $68 million, of which $67.6 million was provided to 241 SFAs and sponsors. Cause: • Lack of policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Subrecipients may not be complying with Federal statutes, regulations, or the terms and conditions of the subaward. • Potential questioned costs and disallowances. Base year reviews provide authorization for the level of allowable claims the SFA can claim in subsequent periods. Without a base year review and necessary revisions, SFAs could be underclaiming or overclaiming costs. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement policies and procedures and increase oversight to ensure that: • reviews are completed as required and supporting documentation is retained; • high-risk SFAs are tracked and considered in planning follow-up reviews; • SFAs revise claims appropriately after a base year review; and • CNS verifies that claim adjustments occur as necessary. Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Department will improve tracking and create procedures to evaluate the Administrative Review Processes for the team. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 (State Number: 24-1203-06)

(2024-033) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________, ________, and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Material weakness Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0909-02)

(2024-033) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________, ________, and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Material weakness Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0909-02)

(2024-033) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________, ________, and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Material weakness Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0909-02)

(2024-033) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________, ________, and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Material weakness Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0909-02)

(2024-033) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: ________ over ________, ________, and ________ needs improvement Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table Type of Finding: Material weakness Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Contact: Shirley Browne, Deputy State Controller, Office of the State Controller, 207-626-8423 (State Number: 24-0909-02)

(2024-034) Title: Internal control over the submission of CNC Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards information needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.502 and .510; 7 CFR 250.58(e); U.S. Department of Agriculture Policy No. FD-104 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must prepare a Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for the period covered by the State’s financial statements which must include the total Federal awards expended, including distribution or use of food commodities. Federal non-cash assistance, such as food commodities, must be valued at fair market value at the time of receipt or the assessed value provided by the Federal Agency. For a cluster of programs, the SEFA must list individual Federal programs within the cluster. In meeting the commodity offer value of donated foods for the school food authority, the distributing agency must use the cost-per-pound donated food price posted annually by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the most recently published cost-per-pound price in the USDA donated foods catalog, and/or a rolling average of the USDA prices. Each distributing or recipient agency must choose a method of valuing USDA donated foods for audit purposes. In most cases, it is recommended that a distributing or recipient agency use one of the options listed in 7 CFR 250.58(e). Once a method of assigning value to USDA donated foods is selected, it must be used consistently in all its audit activities and the State must maintain a record of the means of valuing donated foods for such purposes. Condition: The Department must complete and submit exhibits and related schedules to the Office of the State Controller (OSC) at the close of each fiscal year to report Federal award information for the Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) for inclusion on the State’s SEFA. OSC is responsible for compiling this information on behalf of the State. The Department submitted exhibits to OSC that: • incorrectly excluded $1.2 million of fresh food distributed to subrecipients and additional commodity items received. • incorrectly reported $4,481 of non-cash food assistance under ALN 10.555 National School Lunch Program that should have been reported under ALN 10.559 Summer Food Service Program. • incorrectly excluded $256 of expenditures under ALN 10.556 Special Milk Program. • incorrectly categorized $98,963 in expenditures related to the State’s juvenile correctional facility as subrecipient expenditures instead of direct expenditures. Context: In fiscal year 2024: • CNC expenditures totaled approximately $68 million. • noncash assistance totaling $1.2 million was not reported to OSC by the Department for inclusion on the SEFA. Noncash assistance for CNC totaled $6.2 million. Cause: • Lack of policies and procedures relating to Department SEFA submissions to OSC • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: Inaccurate reporting of expenditure amounts on the SEFA, which is submitted to the Federal government, may result in incorrect information used for programmatic, policy, or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement policies and procedures that require a comprehensive review of SEFA schedules prior to submission to OSC. In addition, we recommend enhanced oversight of policies and procedures to ensure they are consistently applied and the SEFA is accurate and complete. Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The SEFA Review Procedure has been updated to include more specific information regarding the calculation of amounts reported for the Special Milk Program and noncash assistance and the classification of payments made to a school as direct payments rather than subrecipient expenditures. Contact: Nicole Denis, Director of Finance, DOE, 207-530-2161 (State Number: 24-1203-01)

(2024-034) Title: Internal control over the submission of CNC Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards information needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.502 and .510; 7 CFR 250.58(e); U.S. Department of Agriculture Policy No. FD-104 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must prepare a Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for the period covered by the State’s financial statements which must include the total Federal awards expended, including distribution or use of food commodities. Federal non-cash assistance, such as food commodities, must be valued at fair market value at the time of receipt or the assessed value provided by the Federal Agency. For a cluster of programs, the SEFA must list individual Federal programs within the cluster. In meeting the commodity offer value of donated foods for the school food authority, the distributing agency must use the cost-per-pound donated food price posted annually by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the most recently published cost-per-pound price in the USDA donated foods catalog, and/or a rolling average of the USDA prices. Each distributing or recipient agency must choose a method of valuing USDA donated foods for audit purposes. In most cases, it is recommended that a distributing or recipient agency use one of the options listed in 7 CFR 250.58(e). Once a method of assigning value to USDA donated foods is selected, it must be used consistently in all its audit activities and the State must maintain a record of the means of valuing donated foods for such purposes. Condition: The Department must complete and submit exhibits and related schedules to the Office of the State Controller (OSC) at the close of each fiscal year to report Federal award information for the Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) for inclusion on the State’s SEFA. OSC is responsible for compiling this information on behalf of the State. The Department submitted exhibits to OSC that: • incorrectly excluded $1.2 million of fresh food distributed to subrecipients and additional commodity items received. • incorrectly reported $4,481 of non-cash food assistance under ALN 10.555 National School Lunch Program that should have been reported under ALN 10.559 Summer Food Service Program. • incorrectly excluded $256 of expenditures under ALN 10.556 Special Milk Program. • incorrectly categorized $98,963 in expenditures related to the State’s juvenile correctional facility as subrecipient expenditures instead of direct expenditures. Context: In fiscal year 2024: • CNC expenditures totaled approximately $68 million. • noncash assistance totaling $1.2 million was not reported to OSC by the Department for inclusion on the SEFA. Noncash assistance for CNC totaled $6.2 million. Cause: • Lack of policies and procedures relating to Department SEFA submissions to OSC • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: Inaccurate reporting of expenditure amounts on the SEFA, which is submitted to the Federal government, may result in incorrect information used for programmatic, policy, or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement policies and procedures that require a comprehensive review of SEFA schedules prior to submission to OSC. In addition, we recommend enhanced oversight of policies and procedures to ensure they are consistently applied and the SEFA is accurate and complete. Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The SEFA Review Procedure has been updated to include more specific information regarding the calculation of amounts reported for the Special Milk Program and noncash assistance and the classification of payments made to a school as direct payments rather than subrecipient expenditures. Contact: Nicole Denis, Director of Finance, DOE, 207-530-2161 (State Number: 24-1203-01)

(2024-034) Title: Internal control over the submission of CNC Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards information needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.502 and .510; 7 CFR 250.58(e); U.S. Department of Agriculture Policy No. FD-104 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must prepare a Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for the period covered by the State’s financial statements which must include the total Federal awards expended, including distribution or use of food commodities. Federal non-cash assistance, such as food commodities, must be valued at fair market value at the time of receipt or the assessed value provided by the Federal Agency. For a cluster of programs, the SEFA must list individual Federal programs within the cluster. In meeting the commodity offer value of donated foods for the school food authority, the distributing agency must use the cost-per-pound donated food price posted annually by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the most recently published cost-per-pound price in the USDA donated foods catalog, and/or a rolling average of the USDA prices. Each distributing or recipient agency must choose a method of valuing USDA donated foods for audit purposes. In most cases, it is recommended that a distributing or recipient agency use one of the options listed in 7 CFR 250.58(e). Once a method of assigning value to USDA donated foods is selected, it must be used consistently in all its audit activities and the State must maintain a record of the means of valuing donated foods for such purposes. Condition: The Department must complete and submit exhibits and related schedules to the Office of the State Controller (OSC) at the close of each fiscal year to report Federal award information for the Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) for inclusion on the State’s SEFA. OSC is responsible for compiling this information on behalf of the State. The Department submitted exhibits to OSC that: • incorrectly excluded $1.2 million of fresh food distributed to subrecipients and additional commodity items received. • incorrectly reported $4,481 of non-cash food assistance under ALN 10.555 National School Lunch Program that should have been reported under ALN 10.559 Summer Food Service Program. • incorrectly excluded $256 of expenditures under ALN 10.556 Special Milk Program. • incorrectly categorized $98,963 in expenditures related to the State’s juvenile correctional facility as subrecipient expenditures instead of direct expenditures. Context: In fiscal year 2024: • CNC expenditures totaled approximately $68 million. • noncash assistance totaling $1.2 million was not reported to OSC by the Department for inclusion on the SEFA. Noncash assistance for CNC totaled $6.2 million. Cause: • Lack of policies and procedures relating to Department SEFA submissions to OSC • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: Inaccurate reporting of expenditure amounts on the SEFA, which is submitted to the Federal government, may result in incorrect information used for programmatic, policy, or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement policies and procedures that require a comprehensive review of SEFA schedules prior to submission to OSC. In addition, we recommend enhanced oversight of policies and procedures to ensure they are consistently applied and the SEFA is accurate and complete. Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The SEFA Review Procedure has been updated to include more specific information regarding the calculation of amounts reported for the Special Milk Program and noncash assistance and the classification of payments made to a school as direct payments rather than subrecipient expenditures. Contact: Nicole Denis, Director of Finance, DOE, 207-530-2161 (State Number: 24-1203-01)

(2024-034) Title: Internal control over the submission of CNC Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards information needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.502 and .510; 7 CFR 250.58(e); U.S. Department of Agriculture Policy No. FD-104 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must prepare a Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for the period covered by the State’s financial statements which must include the total Federal awards expended, including distribution or use of food commodities. Federal non-cash assistance, such as food commodities, must be valued at fair market value at the time of receipt or the assessed value provided by the Federal Agency. For a cluster of programs, the SEFA must list individual Federal programs within the cluster. In meeting the commodity offer value of donated foods for the school food authority, the distributing agency must use the cost-per-pound donated food price posted annually by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the most recently published cost-per-pound price in the USDA donated foods catalog, and/or a rolling average of the USDA prices. Each distributing or recipient agency must choose a method of valuing USDA donated foods for audit purposes. In most cases, it is recommended that a distributing or recipient agency use one of the options listed in 7 CFR 250.58(e). Once a method of assigning value to USDA donated foods is selected, it must be used consistently in all its audit activities and the State must maintain a record of the means of valuing donated foods for such purposes. Condition: The Department must complete and submit exhibits and related schedules to the Office of the State Controller (OSC) at the close of each fiscal year to report Federal award information for the Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) for inclusion on the State’s SEFA. OSC is responsible for compiling this information on behalf of the State. The Department submitted exhibits to OSC that: • incorrectly excluded $1.2 million of fresh food distributed to subrecipients and additional commodity items received. • incorrectly reported $4,481 of non-cash food assistance under ALN 10.555 National School Lunch Program that should have been reported under ALN 10.559 Summer Food Service Program. • incorrectly excluded $256 of expenditures under ALN 10.556 Special Milk Program. • incorrectly categorized $98,963 in expenditures related to the State’s juvenile correctional facility as subrecipient expenditures instead of direct expenditures. Context: In fiscal year 2024: • CNC expenditures totaled approximately $68 million. • noncash assistance totaling $1.2 million was not reported to OSC by the Department for inclusion on the SEFA. Noncash assistance for CNC totaled $6.2 million. Cause: • Lack of policies and procedures relating to Department SEFA submissions to OSC • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: Inaccurate reporting of expenditure amounts on the SEFA, which is submitted to the Federal government, may result in incorrect information used for programmatic, policy, or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement policies and procedures that require a comprehensive review of SEFA schedules prior to submission to OSC. In addition, we recommend enhanced oversight of policies and procedures to ensure they are consistently applied and the SEFA is accurate and complete. Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The SEFA Review Procedure has been updated to include more specific information regarding the calculation of amounts reported for the Special Milk Program and noncash assistance and the classification of payments made to a school as direct payments rather than subrecipient expenditures. Contact: Nicole Denis, Director of Finance, DOE, 207-530-2161 (State Number: 24-1203-01)

(2024-034) Title: Internal control over the submission of CNC Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards information needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.502 and .510; 7 CFR 250.58(e); U.S. Department of Agriculture Policy No. FD-104 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must prepare a Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for the period covered by the State’s financial statements which must include the total Federal awards expended, including distribution or use of food commodities. Federal non-cash assistance, such as food commodities, must be valued at fair market value at the time of receipt or the assessed value provided by the Federal Agency. For a cluster of programs, the SEFA must list individual Federal programs within the cluster. In meeting the commodity offer value of donated foods for the school food authority, the distributing agency must use the cost-per-pound donated food price posted annually by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the most recently published cost-per-pound price in the USDA donated foods catalog, and/or a rolling average of the USDA prices. Each distributing or recipient agency must choose a method of valuing USDA donated foods for audit purposes. In most cases, it is recommended that a distributing or recipient agency use one of the options listed in 7 CFR 250.58(e). Once a method of assigning value to USDA donated foods is selected, it must be used consistently in all its audit activities and the State must maintain a record of the means of valuing donated foods for such purposes. Condition: The Department must complete and submit exhibits and related schedules to the Office of the State Controller (OSC) at the close of each fiscal year to report Federal award information for the Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) for inclusion on the State’s SEFA. OSC is responsible for compiling this information on behalf of the State. The Department submitted exhibits to OSC that: • incorrectly excluded $1.2 million of fresh food distributed to subrecipients and additional commodity items received. • incorrectly reported $4,481 of non-cash food assistance under ALN 10.555 National School Lunch Program that should have been reported under ALN 10.559 Summer Food Service Program. • incorrectly excluded $256 of expenditures under ALN 10.556 Special Milk Program. • incorrectly categorized $98,963 in expenditures related to the State’s juvenile correctional facility as subrecipient expenditures instead of direct expenditures. Context: In fiscal year 2024: • CNC expenditures totaled approximately $68 million. • noncash assistance totaling $1.2 million was not reported to OSC by the Department for inclusion on the SEFA. Noncash assistance for CNC totaled $6.2 million. Cause: • Lack of policies and procedures relating to Department SEFA submissions to OSC • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: Inaccurate reporting of expenditure amounts on the SEFA, which is submitted to the Federal government, may result in incorrect information used for programmatic, policy, or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement policies and procedures that require a comprehensive review of SEFA schedules prior to submission to OSC. In addition, we recommend enhanced oversight of policies and procedures to ensure they are consistently applied and the SEFA is accurate and complete. Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The SEFA Review Procedure has been updated to include more specific information regarding the calculation of amounts reported for the Special Milk Program and noncash assistance and the classification of payments made to a school as direct payments rather than subrecipient expenditures. Contact: Nicole Denis, Director of Finance, DOE, 207-530-2161 (State Number: 24-1203-01)

(2024-035) Title: Internal control over CNC donated food inventory needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Special tests and provisions Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 7 CFR 250.12 and .19 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. On an annual basis, the distributing agency must conduct a physical review of donated food inventories at all storage facilities used by the distributing agency and must reconcile physical and book inventories of donated foods. The distributing agency must ensure that a separate inventory record of donated foods is maintained. The distributing agency’s system of inventory management must ensure that donated foods are distributed in a timely manner and in optimal condition. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster includes the School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Special Milk Program for Children, Summer Food Service Program, and the Fresh Fruits and Vegetable Program. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools and summer food programs, to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools, and to encourage consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department receives donated foods from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for distribution to School Food Authorities (SFAs) and sponsors participating in the National School Lunch Program or the Summer Food Service Program. In fiscal year 2022, the Department implemented a new inventory system for tracking donated foods. In March 2024, the Department identified that inventory tracking within the Child Nutrition Program system (CNPWeb) was not functioning correctly and order quantities were duplicated. As a result, accurate inventory records were not maintained during fiscal year 2024. The Department submitted a ticket to remediate the system error, and the USDA Food Coordinator manually adjusted inventory records to reflect the duplicated items. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 11 donated food items to ensure that the Department had properly tracked the items. OSA reviewed the manually-adjusted USDA food requests, inventory receipts, and distributions made to SFAs and sponsors and to verify that the documentation corresponded to information in the inventory system and physical inventory counts, and found four instances where the adjusted records did not agree, as follows: • Manually-adjusted system inventory records for: o one food item identified 26 cases less than OSA calculated, and the physical inventory count indicated 27 cases less than the manually-adjusted system inventory records. o one food item requested through CNPWeb exceeded the number of cases available due to the system edit check for ordering in excess of items available was not implemented. o one food item identified three cases less than OSA calculated, and the physical inventory documentation indicated one less case than the manually-adjusted system inventory records. • Physical inventory documentation for one food item identified two cases more than OSA calculated and two cases more than manually-adjusted system inventory records. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. OSA performed a physical inventory inspection and identified that discrepancies existed between the manually-adjusted system inventory items and the physical items on hand for 36 of the 41 food items tested. The Department did not document justification for the inventory discrepancies. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the Department distributed $6.3 million of USDA donated foods to SFAs and sponsors. Cause: Lack of oversight to ensure that: • the newly implemented inventory tracking system is properly configured; and • review, remediation and justification of inventory discrepancies is documented. Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Inaccurate reporting of noncash Federal awards on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards • Theft, loss, or damage of inventory may go undetected. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • review the configuration of the inventory tracking system to remediate variances; • regularly reconcile system inventory records to physical inventory counts; and • document the justification of any inventory discrepancies. Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. CNPWeb is still not working correctly, and there were too many errors during the physical inventory. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 (State Number: 24-1203-03)

(2024-035) Title: Internal control over CNC donated food inventory needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Special tests and provisions Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 7 CFR 250.12 and .19 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. On an annual basis, the distributing agency must conduct a physical review of donated food inventories at all storage facilities used by the distributing agency and must reconcile physical and book inventories of donated foods. The distributing agency must ensure that a separate inventory record of donated foods is maintained. The distributing agency’s system of inventory management must ensure that donated foods are distributed in a timely manner and in optimal condition. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster includes the School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Special Milk Program for Children, Summer Food Service Program, and the Fresh Fruits and Vegetable Program. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools and summer food programs, to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools, and to encourage consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department receives donated foods from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for distribution to School Food Authorities (SFAs) and sponsors participating in the National School Lunch Program or the Summer Food Service Program. In fiscal year 2022, the Department implemented a new inventory system for tracking donated foods. In March 2024, the Department identified that inventory tracking within the Child Nutrition Program system (CNPWeb) was not functioning correctly and order quantities were duplicated. As a result, accurate inventory records were not maintained during fiscal year 2024. The Department submitted a ticket to remediate the system error, and the USDA Food Coordinator manually adjusted inventory records to reflect the duplicated items. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 11 donated food items to ensure that the Department had properly tracked the items. OSA reviewed the manually-adjusted USDA food requests, inventory receipts, and distributions made to SFAs and sponsors and to verify that the documentation corresponded to information in the inventory system and physical inventory counts, and found four instances where the adjusted records did not agree, as follows: • Manually-adjusted system inventory records for: o one food item identified 26 cases less than OSA calculated, and the physical inventory count indicated 27 cases less than the manually-adjusted system inventory records. o one food item requested through CNPWeb exceeded the number of cases available due to the system edit check for ordering in excess of items available was not implemented. o one food item identified three cases less than OSA calculated, and the physical inventory documentation indicated one less case than the manually-adjusted system inventory records. • Physical inventory documentation for one food item identified two cases more than OSA calculated and two cases more than manually-adjusted system inventory records. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. OSA performed a physical inventory inspection and identified that discrepancies existed between the manually-adjusted system inventory items and the physical items on hand for 36 of the 41 food items tested. The Department did not document justification for the inventory discrepancies. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the Department distributed $6.3 million of USDA donated foods to SFAs and sponsors. Cause: Lack of oversight to ensure that: • the newly implemented inventory tracking system is properly configured; and • review, remediation and justification of inventory discrepancies is documented. Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Inaccurate reporting of noncash Federal awards on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards • Theft, loss, or damage of inventory may go undetected. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • review the configuration of the inventory tracking system to remediate variances; • regularly reconcile system inventory records to physical inventory counts; and • document the justification of any inventory discrepancies. Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. CNPWeb is still not working correctly, and there were too many errors during the physical inventory. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 (State Number: 24-1203-03)

(2024-035) Title: Internal control over CNC donated food inventory needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Special tests and provisions Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 7 CFR 250.12 and .19 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. On an annual basis, the distributing agency must conduct a physical review of donated food inventories at all storage facilities used by the distributing agency and must reconcile physical and book inventories of donated foods. The distributing agency must ensure that a separate inventory record of donated foods is maintained. The distributing agency’s system of inventory management must ensure that donated foods are distributed in a timely manner and in optimal condition. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster includes the School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Special Milk Program for Children, Summer Food Service Program, and the Fresh Fruits and Vegetable Program. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools and summer food programs, to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools, and to encourage consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department receives donated foods from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for distribution to School Food Authorities (SFAs) and sponsors participating in the National School Lunch Program or the Summer Food Service Program. In fiscal year 2022, the Department implemented a new inventory system for tracking donated foods. In March 2024, the Department identified that inventory tracking within the Child Nutrition Program system (CNPWeb) was not functioning correctly and order quantities were duplicated. As a result, accurate inventory records were not maintained during fiscal year 2024. The Department submitted a ticket to remediate the system error, and the USDA Food Coordinator manually adjusted inventory records to reflect the duplicated items. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 11 donated food items to ensure that the Department had properly tracked the items. OSA reviewed the manually-adjusted USDA food requests, inventory receipts, and distributions made to SFAs and sponsors and to verify that the documentation corresponded to information in the inventory system and physical inventory counts, and found four instances where the adjusted records did not agree, as follows: • Manually-adjusted system inventory records for: o one food item identified 26 cases less than OSA calculated, and the physical inventory count indicated 27 cases less than the manually-adjusted system inventory records. o one food item requested through CNPWeb exceeded the number of cases available due to the system edit check for ordering in excess of items available was not implemented. o one food item identified three cases less than OSA calculated, and the physical inventory documentation indicated one less case than the manually-adjusted system inventory records. • Physical inventory documentation for one food item identified two cases more than OSA calculated and two cases more than manually-adjusted system inventory records. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. OSA performed a physical inventory inspection and identified that discrepancies existed between the manually-adjusted system inventory items and the physical items on hand for 36 of the 41 food items tested. The Department did not document justification for the inventory discrepancies. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the Department distributed $6.3 million of USDA donated foods to SFAs and sponsors. Cause: Lack of oversight to ensure that: • the newly implemented inventory tracking system is properly configured; and • review, remediation and justification of inventory discrepancies is documented. Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Inaccurate reporting of noncash Federal awards on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards • Theft, loss, or damage of inventory may go undetected. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • review the configuration of the inventory tracking system to remediate variances; • regularly reconcile system inventory records to physical inventory counts; and • document the justification of any inventory discrepancies. Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. CNPWeb is still not working correctly, and there were too many errors during the physical inventory. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 (State Number: 24-1203-03)

(2024-035) Title: Internal control over CNC donated food inventory needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Special tests and provisions Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 7 CFR 250.12 and .19 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. On an annual basis, the distributing agency must conduct a physical review of donated food inventories at all storage facilities used by the distributing agency and must reconcile physical and book inventories of donated foods. The distributing agency must ensure that a separate inventory record of donated foods is maintained. The distributing agency’s system of inventory management must ensure that donated foods are distributed in a timely manner and in optimal condition. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster includes the School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Special Milk Program for Children, Summer Food Service Program, and the Fresh Fruits and Vegetable Program. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools and summer food programs, to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools, and to encourage consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department receives donated foods from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for distribution to School Food Authorities (SFAs) and sponsors participating in the National School Lunch Program or the Summer Food Service Program. In fiscal year 2022, the Department implemented a new inventory system for tracking donated foods. In March 2024, the Department identified that inventory tracking within the Child Nutrition Program system (CNPWeb) was not functioning correctly and order quantities were duplicated. As a result, accurate inventory records were not maintained during fiscal year 2024. The Department submitted a ticket to remediate the system error, and the USDA Food Coordinator manually adjusted inventory records to reflect the duplicated items. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 11 donated food items to ensure that the Department had properly tracked the items. OSA reviewed the manually-adjusted USDA food requests, inventory receipts, and distributions made to SFAs and sponsors and to verify that the documentation corresponded to information in the inventory system and physical inventory counts, and found four instances where the adjusted records did not agree, as follows: • Manually-adjusted system inventory records for: o one food item identified 26 cases less than OSA calculated, and the physical inventory count indicated 27 cases less than the manually-adjusted system inventory records. o one food item requested through CNPWeb exceeded the number of cases available due to the system edit check for ordering in excess of items available was not implemented. o one food item identified three cases less than OSA calculated, and the physical inventory documentation indicated one less case than the manually-adjusted system inventory records. • Physical inventory documentation for one food item identified two cases more than OSA calculated and two cases more than manually-adjusted system inventory records. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. OSA performed a physical inventory inspection and identified that discrepancies existed between the manually-adjusted system inventory items and the physical items on hand for 36 of the 41 food items tested. The Department did not document justification for the inventory discrepancies. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the Department distributed $6.3 million of USDA donated foods to SFAs and sponsors. Cause: Lack of oversight to ensure that: • the newly implemented inventory tracking system is properly configured; and • review, remediation and justification of inventory discrepancies is documented. Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Inaccurate reporting of noncash Federal awards on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards • Theft, loss, or damage of inventory may go undetected. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • review the configuration of the inventory tracking system to remediate variances; • regularly reconcile system inventory records to physical inventory counts; and • document the justification of any inventory discrepancies. Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. CNPWeb is still not working correctly, and there were too many errors during the physical inventory. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 (State Number: 24-1203-03)

(2024-035) Title: Internal control over CNC donated food inventory needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Education State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Special tests and provisions Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 7 CFR 250.12 and .19 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. On an annual basis, the distributing agency must conduct a physical review of donated food inventories at all storage facilities used by the distributing agency and must reconcile physical and book inventories of donated foods. The distributing agency must ensure that a separate inventory record of donated foods is maintained. The distributing agency’s system of inventory management must ensure that donated foods are distributed in a timely manner and in optimal condition. Condition: The Child Nutrition Cluster includes the School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Special Milk Program for Children, Summer Food Service Program, and the Fresh Fruits and Vegetable Program. The objectives of the programs are to provide nutritious meals to eligible children in schools and summer food programs, to foster healthy eating habits by providing fresh fruits and vegetables to children attending elementary schools, and to encourage consumption of nutritious agriculture commodities. The Department receives donated foods from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for distribution to School Food Authorities (SFAs) and sponsors participating in the National School Lunch Program or the Summer Food Service Program. In fiscal year 2022, the Department implemented a new inventory system for tracking donated foods. In March 2024, the Department identified that inventory tracking within the Child Nutrition Program system (CNPWeb) was not functioning correctly and order quantities were duplicated. As a result, accurate inventory records were not maintained during fiscal year 2024. The Department submitted a ticket to remediate the system error, and the USDA Food Coordinator manually adjusted inventory records to reflect the duplicated items. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 11 donated food items to ensure that the Department had properly tracked the items. OSA reviewed the manually-adjusted USDA food requests, inventory receipts, and distributions made to SFAs and sponsors and to verify that the documentation corresponded to information in the inventory system and physical inventory counts, and found four instances where the adjusted records did not agree, as follows: • Manually-adjusted system inventory records for: o one food item identified 26 cases less than OSA calculated, and the physical inventory count indicated 27 cases less than the manually-adjusted system inventory records. o one food item requested through CNPWeb exceeded the number of cases available due to the system edit check for ordering in excess of items available was not implemented. o one food item identified three cases less than OSA calculated, and the physical inventory documentation indicated one less case than the manually-adjusted system inventory records. • Physical inventory documentation for one food item identified two cases more than OSA calculated and two cases more than manually-adjusted system inventory records. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. OSA performed a physical inventory inspection and identified that discrepancies existed between the manually-adjusted system inventory items and the physical items on hand for 36 of the 41 food items tested. The Department did not document justification for the inventory discrepancies. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the Department distributed $6.3 million of USDA donated foods to SFAs and sponsors. Cause: Lack of oversight to ensure that: • the newly implemented inventory tracking system is properly configured; and • review, remediation and justification of inventory discrepancies is documented. Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Inaccurate reporting of noncash Federal awards on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards • Theft, loss, or damage of inventory may go undetected. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • review the configuration of the inventory tracking system to remediate variances; • regularly reconcile system inventory records to physical inventory counts; and • document the justification of any inventory discrepancies. Corrective Action Plan: See F-17 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. CNPWeb is still not working correctly, and there were too many errors during the physical inventory. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 (State Number: 24-1203-03)

(2024-036) Title: Internal control over CNC cash management needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Education Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services General Government Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Cash management Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 31 CFR 205.33; State Administrative and Accounting Manual (SAAM) Section 50.40.80 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must minimize the time between the drawdown of Federal funds and the disbursement of these funds for Federal program purposes. The timing and amount of fund transfers must be as close as administratively feasible to the Department’s actual cash outlay for program costs. Section 50.40.80 of the SAAM has defined administratively feasible as no more than seven business days. Condition: Child Nutrition Services (CNS) is responsible for approving monthly Claims For Reimbursement (CFRs) submitted by School Food Authorities (SFAs). The Department of Administrative and Financial Services’ General Government Service Center (GGSC) is responsible for the drawdown of Federal funds to pay for Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) program expenditures. GGSC utilizes a batch report of CFR amounts approved through the Child Nutrition Program system (CNPWeb) for the drawdown. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) performed analytical procedures over CFRs and identified two reimbursements that exceeded average CFRs. Further procedures found: • one payment was the result of the SFA erroneously claiming all meals served as free meals, and therefore, paid entirely with Federal funds. The SFA subsequently modified the CFR and claimed only 16 percent of meals served as free, resulting in an overpayment of approximately $113,000. To recover the overpayment, CNS subtracted a portion from subsequent monthly claims with the final recoupment occurring in April 2024. As a result, the SFA had excess cash on hand from November 2023 through April 2024. • the other payment was the result of a rejected payment. The November 2023 payment intended for September and October CFRs was rejected by the State’s accounting system. As a result, the December payment to the SFA included CFRs from September through November. The drawdown of Federal funds for the September and October CFRs occurred in November; however, the SFA was not paid until December. GGSC and CNS did not have controls in place to monitor and ensure that batch payments were processed timely. As a result, the State had excess cash on hand for one month. Context: CNS processed $61.8 million in CFRs in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • A revision to a CFR within 60 days that does not increase total reimbursement does not trigger an edit check in the CNPWeb system for manual review. The edit check function is designed to only check overall increases or decreases in the total CFR; therefore, the overpayment of Federal funds went undetected because CNS supplements the Federal meal reimbursement with State funds. Effect: • The Federal government may impose more stringent program-specific cash management requirements based on noncompliance. • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that CNS: • continue to work with GGSC to ensure that batch payments approved for processing are paid timely; and • adjust edit checks in the CNPWeb system to identify changes in Federal and State funding rather than using the total claim amount in order to prevent overpayments. Corrective Action Plan: See F-18 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. The Department acknowledges that improvements could be made over the controls to ensure the timely processing of batch payments. As a result, new procedures have been developed and implemented to confirm that batch payments are processed without delay. However, the Department disagrees with the characterization of noncompliance with cash management requirement regarding the overpayment recoupment and believes the current controls effectively addressed the issue. The CNPWeb system already includes edit checks that track, offset, and reconcile adjustments between state and federal payments within the federal fiscal year, ensuring compliance with both 7 CFR 210.9 and 2 CFR 200.302. The $113,000 overpayment was fully recouped within the same fiscal year through systematic monthly offsets. These offsets occurred within the fund account (school lunch), and the balance was fully corrected through the current claims without any risk of misallocation. All actions were taken within CNPWeb, with no need for intervention outside of the system. 7 CFR 210.9 provides guidance on maintaining appropriate balances for school-level accounts and is not intended to govern isolated errors that were promptly detected and resolved through established program procedures. The Department does not believe that a three-month excess threshold applies in this case, as the error was corrected in accordance with program requirements, and the funds were reconciled in a timely manner. The Department maintains that the existing internal controls, along with the newly implemented procedures, adequately address the identified issues. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department’s Management Response incorrectly cites 7 CFR 210.9 which outlines requirements for the SFA, not the State. The applicable criteria for the compliance exceptions is 31 CFR 205.33 which is referenced in the finding Criteria. The Department did not return excess funds to the Federal government, nor gain approval to retain the funds when the overpayment was identified. This resulted in excess cash on hand at the Department level and thus, noncompliance with 31 CFR 205.33. The Department is misinterpreting that the return of Federal funds at the State level is only required when the funds are returned to the Department from the SFA. Therefore, the Department does not have adequate controls over cash management requirements. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1203-07)

(2024-036) Title: Internal control over CNC cash management needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Education Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services General Government Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Cash management Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 31 CFR 205.33; State Administrative and Accounting Manual (SAAM) Section 50.40.80 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must minimize the time between the drawdown of Federal funds and the disbursement of these funds for Federal program purposes. The timing and amount of fund transfers must be as close as administratively feasible to the Department’s actual cash outlay for program costs. Section 50.40.80 of the SAAM has defined administratively feasible as no more than seven business days. Condition: Child Nutrition Services (CNS) is responsible for approving monthly Claims For Reimbursement (CFRs) submitted by School Food Authorities (SFAs). The Department of Administrative and Financial Services’ General Government Service Center (GGSC) is responsible for the drawdown of Federal funds to pay for Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) program expenditures. GGSC utilizes a batch report of CFR amounts approved through the Child Nutrition Program system (CNPWeb) for the drawdown. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) performed analytical procedures over CFRs and identified two reimbursements that exceeded average CFRs. Further procedures found: • one payment was the result of the SFA erroneously claiming all meals served as free meals, and therefore, paid entirely with Federal funds. The SFA subsequently modified the CFR and claimed only 16 percent of meals served as free, resulting in an overpayment of approximately $113,000. To recover the overpayment, CNS subtracted a portion from subsequent monthly claims with the final recoupment occurring in April 2024. As a result, the SFA had excess cash on hand from November 2023 through April 2024. • the other payment was the result of a rejected payment. The November 2023 payment intended for September and October CFRs was rejected by the State’s accounting system. As a result, the December payment to the SFA included CFRs from September through November. The drawdown of Federal funds for the September and October CFRs occurred in November; however, the SFA was not paid until December. GGSC and CNS did not have controls in place to monitor and ensure that batch payments were processed timely. As a result, the State had excess cash on hand for one month. Context: CNS processed $61.8 million in CFRs in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • A revision to a CFR within 60 days that does not increase total reimbursement does not trigger an edit check in the CNPWeb system for manual review. The edit check function is designed to only check overall increases or decreases in the total CFR; therefore, the overpayment of Federal funds went undetected because CNS supplements the Federal meal reimbursement with State funds. Effect: • The Federal government may impose more stringent program-specific cash management requirements based on noncompliance. • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that CNS: • continue to work with GGSC to ensure that batch payments approved for processing are paid timely; and • adjust edit checks in the CNPWeb system to identify changes in Federal and State funding rather than using the total claim amount in order to prevent overpayments. Corrective Action Plan: See F-18 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. The Department acknowledges that improvements could be made over the controls to ensure the timely processing of batch payments. As a result, new procedures have been developed and implemented to confirm that batch payments are processed without delay. However, the Department disagrees with the characterization of noncompliance with cash management requirement regarding the overpayment recoupment and believes the current controls effectively addressed the issue. The CNPWeb system already includes edit checks that track, offset, and reconcile adjustments between state and federal payments within the federal fiscal year, ensuring compliance with both 7 CFR 210.9 and 2 CFR 200.302. The $113,000 overpayment was fully recouped within the same fiscal year through systematic monthly offsets. These offsets occurred within the fund account (school lunch), and the balance was fully corrected through the current claims without any risk of misallocation. All actions were taken within CNPWeb, with no need for intervention outside of the system. 7 CFR 210.9 provides guidance on maintaining appropriate balances for school-level accounts and is not intended to govern isolated errors that were promptly detected and resolved through established program procedures. The Department does not believe that a three-month excess threshold applies in this case, as the error was corrected in accordance with program requirements, and the funds were reconciled in a timely manner. The Department maintains that the existing internal controls, along with the newly implemented procedures, adequately address the identified issues. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department’s Management Response incorrectly cites 7 CFR 210.9 which outlines requirements for the SFA, not the State. The applicable criteria for the compliance exceptions is 31 CFR 205.33 which is referenced in the finding Criteria. The Department did not return excess funds to the Federal government, nor gain approval to retain the funds when the overpayment was identified. This resulted in excess cash on hand at the Department level and thus, noncompliance with 31 CFR 205.33. The Department is misinterpreting that the return of Federal funds at the State level is only required when the funds are returned to the Department from the SFA. Therefore, the Department does not have adequate controls over cash management requirements. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1203-07)

(2024-036) Title: Internal control over CNC cash management needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Education Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services General Government Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Cash management Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 31 CFR 205.33; State Administrative and Accounting Manual (SAAM) Section 50.40.80 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must minimize the time between the drawdown of Federal funds and the disbursement of these funds for Federal program purposes. The timing and amount of fund transfers must be as close as administratively feasible to the Department’s actual cash outlay for program costs. Section 50.40.80 of the SAAM has defined administratively feasible as no more than seven business days. Condition: Child Nutrition Services (CNS) is responsible for approving monthly Claims For Reimbursement (CFRs) submitted by School Food Authorities (SFAs). The Department of Administrative and Financial Services’ General Government Service Center (GGSC) is responsible for the drawdown of Federal funds to pay for Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) program expenditures. GGSC utilizes a batch report of CFR amounts approved through the Child Nutrition Program system (CNPWeb) for the drawdown. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) performed analytical procedures over CFRs and identified two reimbursements that exceeded average CFRs. Further procedures found: • one payment was the result of the SFA erroneously claiming all meals served as free meals, and therefore, paid entirely with Federal funds. The SFA subsequently modified the CFR and claimed only 16 percent of meals served as free, resulting in an overpayment of approximately $113,000. To recover the overpayment, CNS subtracted a portion from subsequent monthly claims with the final recoupment occurring in April 2024. As a result, the SFA had excess cash on hand from November 2023 through April 2024. • the other payment was the result of a rejected payment. The November 2023 payment intended for September and October CFRs was rejected by the State’s accounting system. As a result, the December payment to the SFA included CFRs from September through November. The drawdown of Federal funds for the September and October CFRs occurred in November; however, the SFA was not paid until December. GGSC and CNS did not have controls in place to monitor and ensure that batch payments were processed timely. As a result, the State had excess cash on hand for one month. Context: CNS processed $61.8 million in CFRs in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • A revision to a CFR within 60 days that does not increase total reimbursement does not trigger an edit check in the CNPWeb system for manual review. The edit check function is designed to only check overall increases or decreases in the total CFR; therefore, the overpayment of Federal funds went undetected because CNS supplements the Federal meal reimbursement with State funds. Effect: • The Federal government may impose more stringent program-specific cash management requirements based on noncompliance. • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that CNS: • continue to work with GGSC to ensure that batch payments approved for processing are paid timely; and • adjust edit checks in the CNPWeb system to identify changes in Federal and State funding rather than using the total claim amount in order to prevent overpayments. Corrective Action Plan: See F-18 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. The Department acknowledges that improvements could be made over the controls to ensure the timely processing of batch payments. As a result, new procedures have been developed and implemented to confirm that batch payments are processed without delay. However, the Department disagrees with the characterization of noncompliance with cash management requirement regarding the overpayment recoupment and believes the current controls effectively addressed the issue. The CNPWeb system already includes edit checks that track, offset, and reconcile adjustments between state and federal payments within the federal fiscal year, ensuring compliance with both 7 CFR 210.9 and 2 CFR 200.302. The $113,000 overpayment was fully recouped within the same fiscal year through systematic monthly offsets. These offsets occurred within the fund account (school lunch), and the balance was fully corrected through the current claims without any risk of misallocation. All actions were taken within CNPWeb, with no need for intervention outside of the system. 7 CFR 210.9 provides guidance on maintaining appropriate balances for school-level accounts and is not intended to govern isolated errors that were promptly detected and resolved through established program procedures. The Department does not believe that a three-month excess threshold applies in this case, as the error was corrected in accordance with program requirements, and the funds were reconciled in a timely manner. The Department maintains that the existing internal controls, along with the newly implemented procedures, adequately address the identified issues. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department’s Management Response incorrectly cites 7 CFR 210.9 which outlines requirements for the SFA, not the State. The applicable criteria for the compliance exceptions is 31 CFR 205.33 which is referenced in the finding Criteria. The Department did not return excess funds to the Federal government, nor gain approval to retain the funds when the overpayment was identified. This resulted in excess cash on hand at the Department level and thus, noncompliance with 31 CFR 205.33. The Department is misinterpreting that the return of Federal funds at the State level is only required when the funds are returned to the Department from the SFA. Therefore, the Department does not have adequate controls over cash management requirements. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1203-07)

(2024-036) Title: Internal control over CNC cash management needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Education Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services General Government Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Cash management Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 31 CFR 205.33; State Administrative and Accounting Manual (SAAM) Section 50.40.80 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must minimize the time between the drawdown of Federal funds and the disbursement of these funds for Federal program purposes. The timing and amount of fund transfers must be as close as administratively feasible to the Department’s actual cash outlay for program costs. Section 50.40.80 of the SAAM has defined administratively feasible as no more than seven business days. Condition: Child Nutrition Services (CNS) is responsible for approving monthly Claims For Reimbursement (CFRs) submitted by School Food Authorities (SFAs). The Department of Administrative and Financial Services’ General Government Service Center (GGSC) is responsible for the drawdown of Federal funds to pay for Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) program expenditures. GGSC utilizes a batch report of CFR amounts approved through the Child Nutrition Program system (CNPWeb) for the drawdown. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) performed analytical procedures over CFRs and identified two reimbursements that exceeded average CFRs. Further procedures found: • one payment was the result of the SFA erroneously claiming all meals served as free meals, and therefore, paid entirely with Federal funds. The SFA subsequently modified the CFR and claimed only 16 percent of meals served as free, resulting in an overpayment of approximately $113,000. To recover the overpayment, CNS subtracted a portion from subsequent monthly claims with the final recoupment occurring in April 2024. As a result, the SFA had excess cash on hand from November 2023 through April 2024. • the other payment was the result of a rejected payment. The November 2023 payment intended for September and October CFRs was rejected by the State’s accounting system. As a result, the December payment to the SFA included CFRs from September through November. The drawdown of Federal funds for the September and October CFRs occurred in November; however, the SFA was not paid until December. GGSC and CNS did not have controls in place to monitor and ensure that batch payments were processed timely. As a result, the State had excess cash on hand for one month. Context: CNS processed $61.8 million in CFRs in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • A revision to a CFR within 60 days that does not increase total reimbursement does not trigger an edit check in the CNPWeb system for manual review. The edit check function is designed to only check overall increases or decreases in the total CFR; therefore, the overpayment of Federal funds went undetected because CNS supplements the Federal meal reimbursement with State funds. Effect: • The Federal government may impose more stringent program-specific cash management requirements based on noncompliance. • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that CNS: • continue to work with GGSC to ensure that batch payments approved for processing are paid timely; and • adjust edit checks in the CNPWeb system to identify changes in Federal and State funding rather than using the total claim amount in order to prevent overpayments. Corrective Action Plan: See F-18 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. The Department acknowledges that improvements could be made over the controls to ensure the timely processing of batch payments. As a result, new procedures have been developed and implemented to confirm that batch payments are processed without delay. However, the Department disagrees with the characterization of noncompliance with cash management requirement regarding the overpayment recoupment and believes the current controls effectively addressed the issue. The CNPWeb system already includes edit checks that track, offset, and reconcile adjustments between state and federal payments within the federal fiscal year, ensuring compliance with both 7 CFR 210.9 and 2 CFR 200.302. The $113,000 overpayment was fully recouped within the same fiscal year through systematic monthly offsets. These offsets occurred within the fund account (school lunch), and the balance was fully corrected through the current claims without any risk of misallocation. All actions were taken within CNPWeb, with no need for intervention outside of the system. 7 CFR 210.9 provides guidance on maintaining appropriate balances for school-level accounts and is not intended to govern isolated errors that were promptly detected and resolved through established program procedures. The Department does not believe that a three-month excess threshold applies in this case, as the error was corrected in accordance with program requirements, and the funds were reconciled in a timely manner. The Department maintains that the existing internal controls, along with the newly implemented procedures, adequately address the identified issues. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department’s Management Response incorrectly cites 7 CFR 210.9 which outlines requirements for the SFA, not the State. The applicable criteria for the compliance exceptions is 31 CFR 205.33 which is referenced in the finding Criteria. The Department did not return excess funds to the Federal government, nor gain approval to retain the funds when the overpayment was identified. This resulted in excess cash on hand at the Department level and thus, noncompliance with 31 CFR 205.33. The Department is misinterpreting that the return of Federal funds at the State level is only required when the funds are returned to the Department from the SFA. Therefore, the Department does not have adequate controls over cash management requirements. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1203-07)

(2024-036) Title: Internal control over CNC cash management needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Education Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Child Nutrition Services General Government Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Cash management Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 31 CFR 205.33; State Administrative and Accounting Manual (SAAM) Section 50.40.80 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must minimize the time between the drawdown of Federal funds and the disbursement of these funds for Federal program purposes. The timing and amount of fund transfers must be as close as administratively feasible to the Department’s actual cash outlay for program costs. Section 50.40.80 of the SAAM has defined administratively feasible as no more than seven business days. Condition: Child Nutrition Services (CNS) is responsible for approving monthly Claims For Reimbursement (CFRs) submitted by School Food Authorities (SFAs). The Department of Administrative and Financial Services’ General Government Service Center (GGSC) is responsible for the drawdown of Federal funds to pay for Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) program expenditures. GGSC utilizes a batch report of CFR amounts approved through the Child Nutrition Program system (CNPWeb) for the drawdown. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) performed analytical procedures over CFRs and identified two reimbursements that exceeded average CFRs. Further procedures found: • one payment was the result of the SFA erroneously claiming all meals served as free meals, and therefore, paid entirely with Federal funds. The SFA subsequently modified the CFR and claimed only 16 percent of meals served as free, resulting in an overpayment of approximately $113,000. To recover the overpayment, CNS subtracted a portion from subsequent monthly claims with the final recoupment occurring in April 2024. As a result, the SFA had excess cash on hand from November 2023 through April 2024. • the other payment was the result of a rejected payment. The November 2023 payment intended for September and October CFRs was rejected by the State’s accounting system. As a result, the December payment to the SFA included CFRs from September through November. The drawdown of Federal funds for the September and October CFRs occurred in November; however, the SFA was not paid until December. GGSC and CNS did not have controls in place to monitor and ensure that batch payments were processed timely. As a result, the State had excess cash on hand for one month. Context: CNS processed $61.8 million in CFRs in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • A revision to a CFR within 60 days that does not increase total reimbursement does not trigger an edit check in the CNPWeb system for manual review. The edit check function is designed to only check overall increases or decreases in the total CFR; therefore, the overpayment of Federal funds went undetected because CNS supplements the Federal meal reimbursement with State funds. Effect: • The Federal government may impose more stringent program-specific cash management requirements based on noncompliance. • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that CNS: • continue to work with GGSC to ensure that batch payments approved for processing are paid timely; and • adjust edit checks in the CNPWeb system to identify changes in Federal and State funding rather than using the total claim amount in order to prevent overpayments. Corrective Action Plan: See F-18 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. The Department acknowledges that improvements could be made over the controls to ensure the timely processing of batch payments. As a result, new procedures have been developed and implemented to confirm that batch payments are processed without delay. However, the Department disagrees with the characterization of noncompliance with cash management requirement regarding the overpayment recoupment and believes the current controls effectively addressed the issue. The CNPWeb system already includes edit checks that track, offset, and reconcile adjustments between state and federal payments within the federal fiscal year, ensuring compliance with both 7 CFR 210.9 and 2 CFR 200.302. The $113,000 overpayment was fully recouped within the same fiscal year through systematic monthly offsets. These offsets occurred within the fund account (school lunch), and the balance was fully corrected through the current claims without any risk of misallocation. All actions were taken within CNPWeb, with no need for intervention outside of the system. 7 CFR 210.9 provides guidance on maintaining appropriate balances for school-level accounts and is not intended to govern isolated errors that were promptly detected and resolved through established program procedures. The Department does not believe that a three-month excess threshold applies in this case, as the error was corrected in accordance with program requirements, and the funds were reconciled in a timely manner. The Department maintains that the existing internal controls, along with the newly implemented procedures, adequately address the identified issues. Contact: Jane McLucas, Director of Child Nutrition, DOE, 207-624-6880 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department’s Management Response incorrectly cites 7 CFR 210.9 which outlines requirements for the SFA, not the State. The applicable criteria for the compliance exceptions is 31 CFR 205.33 which is referenced in the finding Criteria. The Department did not return excess funds to the Federal government, nor gain approval to retain the funds when the overpayment was identified. This resulted in excess cash on hand at the Department level and thus, noncompliance with 31 CFR 205.33. The Department is misinterpreting that the return of Federal funds at the State level is only required when the funds are returned to the Department from the SFA. Therefore, the Department does not have adequate controls over cash management requirements. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1203-07)

(2024-037) Title: Internal control over WIC subrecipient cash management needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Division of Contract Management Maine Center for Disease Control & Prevention Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 10.557 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Cash management Subrecipient monitoring Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.305 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department is required to monitor cash drawdowns by their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the payment of Federal funds to the subrecipient and the subrecipient’s actual disbursement for program purposes is minimized. Condition: The Department’s Division of Contract Management (DCM) has three methods for providing payments to subrecipients: cost-settled, cost-settled by invoice, and fee-for-service subawards. • For cost-settled subawards, DCM procedures include making equal advance monthly payments and then reconciling those amounts to the quarterly financial reports submitted by the subrecipient. This procedure does not take into consideration the time elapsing between the payment of Federal funds to the subrecipient and the subrecipient’s actual disbursement for program purposes. • For “cost-settled by invoice” (reimbursement) subawards, DCM procedures do not require subrecipients to include supporting documentation with monthly requests for reimbursement nor do they request supporting documentation at a subsequent date. This procedure does not take into consideration the time elapsing between the payment of Federal funds to the subrecipient and the subrecipient’s actual disbursement for program purposes. • Cash management requirements are not applicable for fee-for-service subawards. Maine Center for Disease Control & Prevention (MeCDC) is responsible for ensuring the WIC program’s subrecipients comply with Federal requirements; however, MeCDC’s subrecipient monitoring procedures do not include review of subrecipient compliance with cash management requirements. All of WIC’s subawards are cost-settled. Therefore, DCM and MeCDC procedures do not support that subrecipient cash management is properly monitored as required by Federal regulations. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the Department provided $5.9 million to subrecipients from WIC grant funds totaling $22.8 million. Cause: • Lack of adequate subrecipient monitoring procedures • Lack of centralized oversight of subrecipient monitoring Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Federal programs may not be effectively and efficiently administered. • The Federal government may require the implementation of more stringent subrecipient cash management procedures. Recommendation: We recommend that MeCDC collaborate with DCM to implement monitoring procedures over subrecipient cash management requirements to ensure that the time elapsing between the payment of Federal funds to the subrecipient and the subrecipient’s actual disbursement for program purposes is minimized for the WIC program. Corrective Action Plan: See F-18 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The Department is in compliance with the requirement for minimizing the time between payments to our subrecipients and the disbursement of the funds. Payments are made as close as administratively feasible. The Compliance Supplement suggested audit procedures for Cash Management for pass-through entities refers to 200.305(b)(1)...that same paragraph states that the timing and amount of advance payments must be as close as is administratively feasible. Contact: Anthony Madden, Deputy Director, Division of Audit, DHHS, 207-287-2834 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department’s interpretation of the applicable Federal regulation selectively emphasizes a single sentence from the broader paragraph, omitting critical context that informs the regulation’s full intent. According to the 2024 Compliance Supplement, pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of Federal funds to the subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized as required by the applicable cash management requirements in the Federal award to the recipient (2 CFR section 200.305(b)(1)). 2 CFR section 200.305(b)(1) states that the recipient or subrecipient must be paid in advance, provided it maintains or demonstrates the willingness to maintain both written procedures that minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds and disbursement by the recipient or subrecipient, and financial management systems that meet the standards for fund control and accountability as established in this part. Advance payments to a recipient or subrecipient must be limited to the minimum amounts needed and be timed with actual, immediate cash requirements of the recipient or subrecipient in carrying out the purpose of the approved program or project. The timing and amount of advance payments must be as close as is administratively feasible to the actual disbursements by the recipient or subrecipient for direct program or project costs and the proportionate share of any allowable indirect costs. The recipient or subrecipient must make timely payments to contractors in accordance with the contract provisions. The Department references the phrase “as close as is administratively feasible” to justify their current process; however, this phrase is part of a broader requirement that establishes specific conditions for advance payments. The regulation requires that the timing between when the subrecipient receives Federal funds from the State and when the subrecipient disburses those funds is closely monitored to ensure that disbursements align with actual, immediate cash needs. A full reading of the provision indicates that “administratively feasible” does not negate the obligation to implement effective controls that minimize this gap, nor does it permit delays or inadequate oversight in Federal cash management. The Department could not provide evidence to demonstrate that they adequately monitored subrecipient cash drawdowns to ensure alignment with actual, immediate cash needs. Additionally, the Department does not require subrecipients to submit invoice documentation to substantiate the timing, amount, or nature of expenditures included in the request of Federal funds. As a result, the Department cannot demonstrate an adequate level of monitoring, as there is no evidence that they collect the necessary information to ensure compliance with Federal cash management requirements. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1113-03)

(2024-037) Title: Internal control over WIC subrecipient cash management needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Division of Contract Management Maine Center for Disease Control & Prevention Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 10.557 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Cash management Subrecipient monitoring Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.305 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department is required to monitor cash drawdowns by their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the payment of Federal funds to the subrecipient and the subrecipient’s actual disbursement for program purposes is minimized. Condition: The Department’s Division of Contract Management (DCM) has three methods for providing payments to subrecipients: cost-settled, cost-settled by invoice, and fee-for-service subawards. • For cost-settled subawards, DCM procedures include making equal advance monthly payments and then reconciling those amounts to the quarterly financial reports submitted by the subrecipient. This procedure does not take into consideration the time elapsing between the payment of Federal funds to the subrecipient and the subrecipient’s actual disbursement for program purposes. • For “cost-settled by invoice” (reimbursement) subawards, DCM procedures do not require subrecipients to include supporting documentation with monthly requests for reimbursement nor do they request supporting documentation at a subsequent date. This procedure does not take into consideration the time elapsing between the payment of Federal funds to the subrecipient and the subrecipient’s actual disbursement for program purposes. • Cash management requirements are not applicable for fee-for-service subawards. Maine Center for Disease Control & Prevention (MeCDC) is responsible for ensuring the WIC program’s subrecipients comply with Federal requirements; however, MeCDC’s subrecipient monitoring procedures do not include review of subrecipient compliance with cash management requirements. All of WIC’s subawards are cost-settled. Therefore, DCM and MeCDC procedures do not support that subrecipient cash management is properly monitored as required by Federal regulations. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the Department provided $5.9 million to subrecipients from WIC grant funds totaling $22.8 million. Cause: • Lack of adequate subrecipient monitoring procedures • Lack of centralized oversight of subrecipient monitoring Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Federal programs may not be effectively and efficiently administered. • The Federal government may require the implementation of more stringent subrecipient cash management procedures. Recommendation: We recommend that MeCDC collaborate with DCM to implement monitoring procedures over subrecipient cash management requirements to ensure that the time elapsing between the payment of Federal funds to the subrecipient and the subrecipient’s actual disbursement for program purposes is minimized for the WIC program. Corrective Action Plan: See F-18 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The Department is in compliance with the requirement for minimizing the time between payments to our subrecipients and the disbursement of the funds. Payments are made as close as administratively feasible. The Compliance Supplement suggested audit procedures for Cash Management for pass-through entities refers to 200.305(b)(1)...that same paragraph states that the timing and amount of advance payments must be as close as is administratively feasible. Contact: Anthony Madden, Deputy Director, Division of Audit, DHHS, 207-287-2834 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department’s interpretation of the applicable Federal regulation selectively emphasizes a single sentence from the broader paragraph, omitting critical context that informs the regulation’s full intent. According to the 2024 Compliance Supplement, pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of Federal funds to the subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized as required by the applicable cash management requirements in the Federal award to the recipient (2 CFR section 200.305(b)(1)). 2 CFR section 200.305(b)(1) states that the recipient or subrecipient must be paid in advance, provided it maintains or demonstrates the willingness to maintain both written procedures that minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds and disbursement by the recipient or subrecipient, and financial management systems that meet the standards for fund control and accountability as established in this part. Advance payments to a recipient or subrecipient must be limited to the minimum amounts needed and be timed with actual, immediate cash requirements of the recipient or subrecipient in carrying out the purpose of the approved program or project. The timing and amount of advance payments must be as close as is administratively feasible to the actual disbursements by the recipient or subrecipient for direct program or project costs and the proportionate share of any allowable indirect costs. The recipient or subrecipient must make timely payments to contractors in accordance with the contract provisions. The Department references the phrase “as close as is administratively feasible” to justify their current process; however, this phrase is part of a broader requirement that establishes specific conditions for advance payments. The regulation requires that the timing between when the subrecipient receives Federal funds from the State and when the subrecipient disburses those funds is closely monitored to ensure that disbursements align with actual, immediate cash needs. A full reading of the provision indicates that “administratively feasible” does not negate the obligation to implement effective controls that minimize this gap, nor does it permit delays or inadequate oversight in Federal cash management. The Department could not provide evidence to demonstrate that they adequately monitored subrecipient cash drawdowns to ensure alignment with actual, immediate cash needs. Additionally, the Department does not require subrecipients to submit invoice documentation to substantiate the timing, amount, or nature of expenditures included in the request of Federal funds. As a result, the Department cannot demonstrate an adequate level of monitoring, as there is no evidence that they collect the necessary information to ensure compliance with Federal cash management requirements. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1113-03)

(2024-038) Title: Internal control over WIC cash balances needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Maine Center for Disease Control & Prevention Health and Human Services Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 10.557 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Cash management Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.302 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the awards. Financial records must adequately identify the source and application of funds and provide accountability for all funds, property, and other assets related to the Federally-funded activities. Condition: The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) issued finding 2019-021 as a result of procedures performed for the fiscal year 2019 audit. This finding identified that “Program personnel did not take the existing cash balance into consideration when requesting Federal funds for the Food portion of the WIC grant.” This resulted in an excess cash balance for the Food grant. The finding continues to be repeated as the Department has not returned the funds to the Federal awarding agency and the excess cash balance remains. Context: The Department calculated a $1,055,104 residual cash balance from the 2013 WIC Food grant and a $4,100 residual cash balance from the 2018 WIC Food grant. Cause: Lack of adequate recordkeeping and account reconciliation in prior years. The Department has made efforts to seek disposition from the Federal awarding agency; however, the issue has not been resolved. Effect: The State may be required to return $1,059,204 to the Federal awarding agency. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department continue efforts to resolve this matter with the Federal awarding agency. Corrective Action Plan: See F-18 Management’s Response: The Department and the DHHS Financial Service Center agree with this finding. The Department will work with the Federal Agency on steps needed to resolve the cash discrepancy. Contact: Sarah Gove, Director, DHHS Service Center, DAFS, 207-458-6626 (State Number: 24-1113-01)

(2024-038) Title: Internal control over WIC cash balances needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Maine Center for Disease Control & Prevention Health and Human Services Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Assistance Listing Title: Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 10.557 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Cash management Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.302 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the awards. Financial records must adequately identify the source and application of funds and provide accountability for all funds, property, and other assets related to the Federally-funded activities. Condition: The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) issued finding 2019-021 as a result of procedures performed for the fiscal year 2019 audit. This finding identified that “Program personnel did not take the existing cash balance into consideration when requesting Federal funds for the Food portion of the WIC grant.” This resulted in an excess cash balance for the Food grant. The finding continues to be repeated as the Department has not returned the funds to the Federal awarding agency and the excess cash balance remains. Context: The Department calculated a $1,055,104 residual cash balance from the 2013 WIC Food grant and a $4,100 residual cash balance from the 2018 WIC Food grant. Cause: Lack of adequate recordkeeping and account reconciliation in prior years. The Department has made efforts to seek disposition from the Federal awarding agency; however, the issue has not been resolved. Effect: The State may be required to return $1,059,204 to the Federal awarding agency. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department continue efforts to resolve this matter with the Federal awarding agency. Corrective Action Plan: See F-18 Management’s Response: The Department and the DHHS Financial Service Center agree with this finding. The Department will work with the Federal Agency on steps needed to resolve the cash discrepancy. Contact: Sarah Gove, Director, DHHS Service Center, DAFS, 207-458-6626 (State Number: 24-1113-01)

(2024-039) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: Internal control over UI claim payments needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Labor State Bureau: Unemployment Compensation Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Labor Assistance Listing Title: Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 17.225 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Eligibility Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 20 CFR 615.8; Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012; Social Security Act Title III, Section 303; Unemployment Insurance Program Letter No. 5-13; 26 MRSA 1190 through 1199 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. A State administering Unemployment Insurance (UI) must have State laws and policies in place that are consistent with Federal provisions and required by 20 CFR 615.8; the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012; Social Security Act Title III, Section 303; and Unemployment Insurance Program Letter No. 5-13, as follows: • Standards for claim filing and processing including appeals and reviews, communication with claimants and employers, eligibility standards and disqualifications, and Interstate Benefit Payments and agreements • Standards for reasonable work search criteria and policies requiring performance of internal audits of work search activity • Standards for program integrity outlining procedures for identification and recovery of overpayments and penalties, including recovery through offset of future benefit payments The State of Maine’s statutory requirements for UI program benefits are outlined in 26 MRSA 1190 through 1199. Condition: Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. The Department has complementary controls in place over claimant eligibility, including: • performance of internal work search audits by MDOL personnel for one percent of weekly claims, and • establishment of a Benefits Quality Control Unit tasked with investigating a prescribed number of UI paid claims and denied claims each week. The Office of the State Auditor performed data analytic procedures surrounding continuing eligibility requirements for weekly claim submission and work search activity entered by claimants and identified the following indications of claimant program abuse: • 21 claimants reported repetitive work search activities for all fiscal year 2024 claims, ranging from 7 to 14 consecutive benefit weeks. • 24 claimants reported the same work search contact for all fiscal year 2024 claims, ranging from 17 to 34 consecutive benefit weeks. • Six claimants reported new return to work dates ranging from 7 to 11 consecutive benefit weeks, which generated new temporary unemployment waivers allowing claimants to file weekly claims without reporting work search activities. • Five claimants reported part-time work totaling less than 10 hours per week ranging from 8 to 21 consecutive benefit weeks, generating new weekly unemployment waivers allowing the claimant to file weekly claims without reporting work search activities. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the UI program provided approximately $119 million in State UI benefits and $800 thousand in Federal UI benefits. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures over continuing claimant eligibility determinations • Lack of adequate supervisory oversight of information system application controls Effect: • Claimants may be incorrectly determined eligible for UI benefits without meeting Federal program requirements, which may result in unallowable issuances of benefit payments that could remain undetected. • Potential questioned costs and disallowances Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance policies and procedures to require: • implementation of additional information system application controls. • incorporation of data analytics and data cross-matching procedures to prevent or detect payments to ineligible claimants. This will provide assurance that eligibility requirements are met and adequately supported, and that payments to ineligible claimants are prevented, or detected and corrected, in a timely manner. Corrective Action Plan: See F-18 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. The Department acknowledges these audit findings and uses them to refine its system controls to enhance compliance and accuracy in processing claims. Regarding work search waivers for individuals with a return-to-work date, the Department agrees with the finding and implemented a system update in January 2025 to more effectively administer return to work, work search waivers. Based on specifics of the selected cases, management disagrees with the characterization of some work search activities as repetitive. Work search assistance through the Department’s CareerCenters may appear repetitive on a weekly claim but work search assistance from Department staff is both varied and productive. Additionally, job openings during the covered period were frequent, even with the same employer. When work search or other issues are detected on a claim, the Department schedules a fact-finding interview and requests additional documentation. State law requires the Department to continue an individual’s benefits pending a fact-finding review, for which the individual must be given at least seven days’ notice. In addition to conducting fact-finding interviews on issues detected on the weekly claim, the Department randomly audits 3% of claims each week to verify the information provided. Using information obtained through fact-finding interview, a claims adjudicator may uphold the payment of benefits or require the benefits to be repaid. While our policies and procedures align with existing regulations and are functioning as intended, the Department is committed to continuously improving our systems and processes in order to better serve claimants and uphold program integrity. The identified cases will be used to further refine our procedures. Contact: Suzan McKechnie, Director, Bureau of Unemployment Compensation, DOL, 207-621-5126 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over compliance with eligibility requirements. While the Department does have controls in place to perform fact-finding interviews and work search audits, those procedures are carried out after UI benefits have been paid. The data analytics procedures noted in the Condition identified potential instances of program abuse and claimant activity with a high risk of noncompliance that was not detected by the Department’s existing internal controls. Implementation of additional information system application controls and incorporation of data analytics and data cross-matching procedures will provide further assurance that eligibility requirements are met and adequately supported, and that payments to ineligible claimants are prevented, or detected and corrected, in a timely manner. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1302-02)

(2024-039) Confidential finding, see below for more information Title: Internal control over UI claim payments needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Labor State Bureau: Unemployment Compensation Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Labor Assistance Listing Title: Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 17.225 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Eligibility Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 20 CFR 615.8; Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012; Social Security Act Title III, Section 303; Unemployment Insurance Program Letter No. 5-13; 26 MRSA 1190 through 1199 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. A State administering Unemployment Insurance (UI) must have State laws and policies in place that are consistent with Federal provisions and required by 20 CFR 615.8; the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012; Social Security Act Title III, Section 303; and Unemployment Insurance Program Letter No. 5-13, as follows: • Standards for claim filing and processing including appeals and reviews, communication with claimants and employers, eligibility standards and disqualifications, and Interstate Benefit Payments and agreements • Standards for reasonable work search criteria and policies requiring performance of internal audits of work search activity • Standards for program integrity outlining procedures for identification and recovery of overpayments and penalties, including recovery through offset of future benefit payments The State of Maine’s statutory requirements for UI program benefits are outlined in 26 MRSA 1190 through 1199. Condition: Pursuant to paragraph 6.63 of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards (also known as the Yellow Book), we omitted details from this finding as they are confidential under the provisions of 5 MRSA 244-C (3). Though the content of this finding has been redacted, we provided the Department(s) with detailed information regarding the specific condition we identified, as well as the related criteria, context, causes, effects, and our specific recommendations for improvement. The Department has complementary controls in place over claimant eligibility, including: • performance of internal work search audits by MDOL personnel for one percent of weekly claims, and • establishment of a Benefits Quality Control Unit tasked with investigating a prescribed number of UI paid claims and denied claims each week. The Office of the State Auditor performed data analytic procedures surrounding continuing eligibility requirements for weekly claim submission and work search activity entered by claimants and identified the following indications of claimant program abuse: • 21 claimants reported repetitive work search activities for all fiscal year 2024 claims, ranging from 7 to 14 consecutive benefit weeks. • 24 claimants reported the same work search contact for all fiscal year 2024 claims, ranging from 17 to 34 consecutive benefit weeks. • Six claimants reported new return to work dates ranging from 7 to 11 consecutive benefit weeks, which generated new temporary unemployment waivers allowing claimants to file weekly claims without reporting work search activities. • Five claimants reported part-time work totaling less than 10 hours per week ranging from 8 to 21 consecutive benefit weeks, generating new weekly unemployment waivers allowing the claimant to file weekly claims without reporting work search activities. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the UI program provided approximately $119 million in State UI benefits and $800 thousand in Federal UI benefits. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures over continuing claimant eligibility determinations • Lack of adequate supervisory oversight of information system application controls Effect: • Claimants may be incorrectly determined eligible for UI benefits without meeting Federal program requirements, which may result in unallowable issuances of benefit payments that could remain undetected. • Potential questioned costs and disallowances Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance policies and procedures to require: • implementation of additional information system application controls. • incorporation of data analytics and data cross-matching procedures to prevent or detect payments to ineligible claimants. This will provide assurance that eligibility requirements are met and adequately supported, and that payments to ineligible claimants are prevented, or detected and corrected, in a timely manner. Corrective Action Plan: See F-18 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. The Department acknowledges these audit findings and uses them to refine its system controls to enhance compliance and accuracy in processing claims. Regarding work search waivers for individuals with a return-to-work date, the Department agrees with the finding and implemented a system update in January 2025 to more effectively administer return to work, work search waivers. Based on specifics of the selected cases, management disagrees with the characterization of some work search activities as repetitive. Work search assistance through the Department’s CareerCenters may appear repetitive on a weekly claim but work search assistance from Department staff is both varied and productive. Additionally, job openings during the covered period were frequent, even with the same employer. When work search or other issues are detected on a claim, the Department schedules a fact-finding interview and requests additional documentation. State law requires the Department to continue an individual’s benefits pending a fact-finding review, for which the individual must be given at least seven days’ notice. In addition to conducting fact-finding interviews on issues detected on the weekly claim, the Department randomly audits 3% of claims each week to verify the information provided. Using information obtained through fact-finding interview, a claims adjudicator may uphold the payment of benefits or require the benefits to be repaid. While our policies and procedures align with existing regulations and are functioning as intended, the Department is committed to continuously improving our systems and processes in order to better serve claimants and uphold program integrity. The identified cases will be used to further refine our procedures. Contact: Suzan McKechnie, Director, Bureau of Unemployment Compensation, DOL, 207-621-5126 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over compliance with eligibility requirements. While the Department does have controls in place to perform fact-finding interviews and work search audits, those procedures are carried out after UI benefits have been paid. The data analytics procedures noted in the Condition identified potential instances of program abuse and claimant activity with a high risk of noncompliance that was not detected by the Department’s existing internal controls. Implementation of additional information system application controls and incorporation of data analytics and data cross-matching procedures will provide further assurance that eligibility requirements are met and adequately supported, and that payments to ineligible claimants are prevented, or detected and corrected, in a timely manner. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1302-02)

(2024-040) Title: Internal control over UI overpayments needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Labor State Bureau: Unemployment Compensation Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Labor Assistance Listing Title: Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 17.225 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Special tests and provisions Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; Public Law Nos. 112-40 and 113-67 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal controls over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The State is required to properly identify and establish overpayments, track repayments, and process them regularly to ensure recovered payments are returned to the original funding source. The Department must sufficiently automate Unemployment Insurance (UI) operations and appropriately handle overpayment information to obtain, correspond, maintain, and transmit information concerning UI benefits. Condition: The Maine Department of Labor (MDOL) promotes and maintains the integrity of the UI program through the prevention, detection, and recovery of UI overpayments made to claimants. An UI overpayment may be established if a claimant is ultimately deemed ineligible for UI benefits after already receiving payment. MDOL must properly identify and establish overpayments to ensure that appropriate follow up action is initiated based on the classification of the overpayment. Once an overpayment is established and classified, a Demand for Payment Notice is generated within the ReEmployME system and transmitted to the claimant to initiate recoupment. The ReEmployME information system stores all claimant overpayment information including data on specific overpayment classifications, causes, and decisions; history logs; and correspondence with claimants. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 claimant overpayments to determine whether MDOL properly established, classified, and monitored overpayments and collections, and found that: • the ReEmployME system established a duplicate overpayment for one claimant for the same claim week. Because of the duplication, one record of overpayment totaling $520 remained active within the system after the overpayment was liquidated. • One Demand for Payment Notice was not communicated to the claimant. The overpayment totaling $9,668 remained active and uncollected from August 2023 to the time of audit testing in February 2025. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the UI program provided $119 million in State UI benefits and $800,000 in Federal UI benefits, and the Department identified $6.5 million in claimant overpayments. Cause: • ReEmployME system error • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate policies and procedures Effect: • Inaccurate UI claimant and overpayment information within the ReEmployME system • Potential untimely or ineffective recoupment of UI benefit overpayments • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance policies and procedures, including increased supervisory oversight, to ensure that claimant overpayments are accurately recorded in the ReEmployME system, properly monitored, and collected timely. Corrective Action Plan: See F-19 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. Remediation efforts are already underway for both issues. Several parameters have been established based on prior findings, and manual monitoring is in place to ensure overpayments are correctly identified. Additionally, federal compliance with the Benefit Accuracy Measurement (BAM) program provides an additional layer of oversight to verify the accuracy of unemployment claims. BAM audits are completed by a unit within the Bureau of Unemployment Compensation. Audits include a comprehensive review of claims and payments. To further enhance oversight, system parameters will be implemented to ensure functionality aligns with MDOL’s agreed-upon standards. The agency remains committed to ensuring compliance, improving system functionality, and reinforcing procedural accuracy to mitigate future occurrences of these issues. Contact: Suzan McKechnie Director, Bureau of Unemployment Compensation, MDOL, 207-621-5126 (State Number: 24-1302-01)

(2024-040) Title: Internal control over UI overpayments needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Labor State Bureau: Unemployment Compensation Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Labor Assistance Listing Title: Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 17.225 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Special tests and provisions Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; Public Law Nos. 112-40 and 113-67 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal controls over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The State is required to properly identify and establish overpayments, track repayments, and process them regularly to ensure recovered payments are returned to the original funding source. The Department must sufficiently automate Unemployment Insurance (UI) operations and appropriately handle overpayment information to obtain, correspond, maintain, and transmit information concerning UI benefits. Condition: The Maine Department of Labor (MDOL) promotes and maintains the integrity of the UI program through the prevention, detection, and recovery of UI overpayments made to claimants. An UI overpayment may be established if a claimant is ultimately deemed ineligible for UI benefits after already receiving payment. MDOL must properly identify and establish overpayments to ensure that appropriate follow up action is initiated based on the classification of the overpayment. Once an overpayment is established and classified, a Demand for Payment Notice is generated within the ReEmployME system and transmitted to the claimant to initiate recoupment. The ReEmployME information system stores all claimant overpayment information including data on specific overpayment classifications, causes, and decisions; history logs; and correspondence with claimants. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 claimant overpayments to determine whether MDOL properly established, classified, and monitored overpayments and collections, and found that: • the ReEmployME system established a duplicate overpayment for one claimant for the same claim week. Because of the duplication, one record of overpayment totaling $520 remained active within the system after the overpayment was liquidated. • One Demand for Payment Notice was not communicated to the claimant. The overpayment totaling $9,668 remained active and uncollected from August 2023 to the time of audit testing in February 2025. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the UI program provided $119 million in State UI benefits and $800,000 in Federal UI benefits, and the Department identified $6.5 million in claimant overpayments. Cause: • ReEmployME system error • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate policies and procedures Effect: • Inaccurate UI claimant and overpayment information within the ReEmployME system • Potential untimely or ineffective recoupment of UI benefit overpayments • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance policies and procedures, including increased supervisory oversight, to ensure that claimant overpayments are accurately recorded in the ReEmployME system, properly monitored, and collected timely. Corrective Action Plan: See F-19 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. Remediation efforts are already underway for both issues. Several parameters have been established based on prior findings, and manual monitoring is in place to ensure overpayments are correctly identified. Additionally, federal compliance with the Benefit Accuracy Measurement (BAM) program provides an additional layer of oversight to verify the accuracy of unemployment claims. BAM audits are completed by a unit within the Bureau of Unemployment Compensation. Audits include a comprehensive review of claims and payments. To further enhance oversight, system parameters will be implemented to ensure functionality aligns with MDOL’s agreed-upon standards. The agency remains committed to ensuring compliance, improving system functionality, and reinforcing procedural accuracy to mitigate future occurrences of these issues. Contact: Suzan McKechnie Director, Bureau of Unemployment Compensation, MDOL, 207-621-5126 (State Number: 24-1302-01)

(2024-041) Title: Internal control over monitoring of employee classification and compensation needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Human Resources Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Fish and Wildlife Cluster Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Rehabilitation Services – Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 15.605, 15.611, 15.626; 17.225; 84.027, 84.173; 84.126; 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.430; 5 MRSA 7061 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that personal services are rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, total compensation is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity, and follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity’s laws and/or rules or written policies. 5 MRSA 7061 states that the (Bureau of Human Resources (BHR)) director shall record the duties and responsibilities of all positions in State service and establish classes for these positions. The procedure shall provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. Condition: BHR maintains the job classification specifications and related compensation plan of State employees. A specific salary specification and grade is assigned based on the duties and responsibilities referenced in the job classification specification; this represents reasonable compensation for the services rendered for all positions that inhabit a given job classification specification. The assigned salary grade provides a basis for the allowability of compensation costs charged to Federal awards by documenting the reasonableness of compensation for services rendered by State employees, and that the position appointments under the job classification specification were made and maintained in accordance with State statute. While BHR relies on data collected from State agencies to implement procedures regarding the classification plan, BHR retains ultimate oversight responsibility. BHR is the only agency with the authority to modify the classification plan. According to 5 MRSA 7061, BHR must provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 19 job classification specifications for compliance with 5 MRSA 7061. BHR could not provide documentation for 14 of the 19 job classification specifications tested to support that they were updated within five years as required by 5 MRSA 7061. Additionally, BHR’s current tracking mechanism does not effectively identify the dates of the last review and next scheduled review, thus hindering compliance with the statutory five-year cycle. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: • During fiscal year 2024, approximately $139 million in payroll expenditures were charged to Federal grants. This represents approximately ten percent of fiscal year 2024 Statewide payroll expenditures, which totaled $1.3 billion. • BHR was responsible for managing approximately 1,200 job classification specifications in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: State employee job classification and compensation may not accurately reflect the current duties and responsibilities of each position. Without documented evidence that review activities are occurring, BHR cannot ensure that the decisions involving the classification and compensation plan of all State employee positions are properly supported by documentation that accurately reflects the current duties and responsibilities of each position. As a result, this may lead to noncompliance with Federal and State regulations.   Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • enhance oversight regarding the maintenance of the State classification and compensation plan in accordance with State statute; • implement policies and procedures to ensure updates or reviews of the State classification and compensation plan at the job classification specification level are adequately documented; and • implement a tracking mechanism to accurately monitor the dates of past reviews and schedule forthcoming reviews to aid in adherence to the statutory requirement. Corrective Action Plan: See F-19 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The procedure referenced in 5 M.R.S. Sec. 7061(4) is laid out in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. The Department complies with these written policies and procedures as required by federal and state law. Section 7061(4) was last updated in 2023, with an effective date in October 2023. Pursuant to the JSC on Appropriations, Section 7061(4)(A) requires a review every five years of the state compensation plan for each class or position in the classified service. The FJA process is not related to the compensation plan, however, it is administered under a separate internal control structure that is in place and operating effectively and ensures that the compensation for individual employees is reasonable for the services rendered. The requirement for review of each classification through the FJA process is covered under Section 7061(4)(C) and is required to be reviewed every 10 years. It is also important to note that the Department has conferred with the OAG, who determined that Section 7061(4)(C) is not retroactive, meaning the Department has another 8.5 years to complete a review of all classifications. Additionally, salary studies conducted on State employee wages have shown that the salary and wages of job classifications paid by the State are consistently lower than industry averages, removing the risk that the utilization of these salary schedules as a component of payroll costs will cause overcharges to Federal grants. Contact: Michael J. Dunn, Acting State Human Resources Officer, Bureau of Human Resources, DAFS, 207-287-4651 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: OSA acknowledges BHR’s reference to 5 MRSA 7061(4), as amended in October 2023, and the procedures for the classification maintenance outlined in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. We also recognize the distinction BHR draws between the five-year statutory requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) for updating job descriptions and compensation plan components, and the ten-year classification plan review introduced under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). OSA’s review focused on BHR’s compliance with the five-year update requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A). While the statute was amended in 2023, the requirement that job descriptions be updated at least every five years has been in place since 1987. The recent amendment did not create this requirement; it expanded BHR’s obligation by tying the update process to the compensation plan and introducing a separate ten-year comprehensive classification review under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). These changes reflect an intent to strengthen oversight and modernize the State’s personnel system, not to delay or diminish BHR’s statutory responsibilities. To distinguish between BHR’s statutory responsibilities under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) and 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C), subsection (4)(A) requires periodic updating of job descriptions and the compensation plan at least every five years; this ensures that individual job classification specifications remain current and accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of State positions. In contrast, subsection (4)(C), introduced in 2023, requires a broader, ten-year comprehensive review of the classification plan as a whole. The two requirements serve different purposes and operate on separate cycles. The five-year review of individual classifications under subsection (4)(A) remains an ongoing statutory obligation, regardless of the addition of subsection (4)(C). While BHR references its internal procedures under 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4 as evidence of compliance, those procedures do not incorporate or reflect the statutory five-year update requirement in subsection (4)(A) or the ten-year update in subsection (4)(C). Furthermore, BHR could not provide documentation to support that 14 of the 19 job classifications tested by OSA had been reviewed or updated within the required timeframe. BHR does not have a comprehensive system to track classification review dates across the classification plan, making it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the statute or proactively manage updates. Internal policy may guide operations, but compliance is ultimately measured against the statutory requirements that govern those operations. The issues identified in audit testing also have implications for the compensation system. Under 5 MRSA 7065, the State’s compensation plan is developed based on the classification plan, with salary grades assigned to specific job classes according to documented duties and responsibilities. The classification plan is the foundational structure upon which compensation decisions are made. If job descriptions are outdated, or not periodically reviewed as required, positions may be misaligned with inappropriate salary grades, which may lead to pay that does not accurately reflect the nature or complexity of the work, including Federally-funded positions. Without a properly maintained classification system, the State cannot ensure that compensation, whether paid with State or Federal funds, is supported by a valid and compliant classification system. Under 2 CFR 200.430(a)(2), compensation for personal services is allowable under Federal awards only when it follows “an appointment made in accordance with the recipient’s…laws, rules, or written policies.” This Federal regulation places the burden of compliance on the State’s adherence to its own legal framework. The Federal government allows flexibility, but that flexibility hinges on the condition that the State follows its own laws; it is the minimum threshold for allowability requirements over personnel costs. Compliance with this law is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation and direct reflection of the expectations placed on the State by the Legislature and the Federal government. BHR asserts that State employee compensation is consistently below market rates and therefore poses no risk of overcharging Federal programs. Even if BHR’s current assertion that State salaries are below market is accepted, Federal guidance provides that reasonableness in amount is only one factor in determining allowability. Compensation must also follow lawful appointment processes and reflect compliance with State personnel laws. A claim of underpayment is not a compensating control to prevent noncompliance with required classification updates. The following statutes only serve to emphasize the responsibility placed upon BHR and the State Human Resources Officer. Under 5 MRSA 7036, the State Human Resources Officer is explicitly responsible for adopting rules for both classification and compensation plans (7036(I) and (J)), enforcing the Civil Service Law (7036(21)), and conducting both short-term and long-term planning for the State’s personnel system (7036(10)). The Officer is also responsible for responding to reclassification requests (7036(5)) and working closely with agencies on their personnel needs (7036(7)). These statutory responsibilities further confirm that maintaining accurate, up-to-date classification specifications is not discretionary. Moreover, failure to fulfill these legal duties has implications that underscore the purpose of a centralized human resources function. These conditions present a risk to the accessibility to public service employment, including potential delayed hiring decisions and diminished ability to attract and retain a skilled workforce. When classification structures are outdated and statutory mandates are not followed, BHR cannot deliver on its mission. We acknowledge BHR’s consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and its efforts to clarify its interpretation of the law; however, the condition observed during the audit period reflects a neutralization of internal controls and subsequent risk of noncompliance with statutory requirements that directly affect both classification and the allowability of personnel costs under Federal awards. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-0111-01)

(2024-041) Title: Internal control over monitoring of employee classification and compensation needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Human Resources Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Fish and Wildlife Cluster Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Rehabilitation Services – Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 15.605, 15.611, 15.626; 17.225; 84.027, 84.173; 84.126; 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.430; 5 MRSA 7061 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that personal services are rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, total compensation is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity, and follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity’s laws and/or rules or written policies. 5 MRSA 7061 states that the (Bureau of Human Resources (BHR)) director shall record the duties and responsibilities of all positions in State service and establish classes for these positions. The procedure shall provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. Condition: BHR maintains the job classification specifications and related compensation plan of State employees. A specific salary specification and grade is assigned based on the duties and responsibilities referenced in the job classification specification; this represents reasonable compensation for the services rendered for all positions that inhabit a given job classification specification. The assigned salary grade provides a basis for the allowability of compensation costs charged to Federal awards by documenting the reasonableness of compensation for services rendered by State employees, and that the position appointments under the job classification specification were made and maintained in accordance with State statute. While BHR relies on data collected from State agencies to implement procedures regarding the classification plan, BHR retains ultimate oversight responsibility. BHR is the only agency with the authority to modify the classification plan. According to 5 MRSA 7061, BHR must provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 19 job classification specifications for compliance with 5 MRSA 7061. BHR could not provide documentation for 14 of the 19 job classification specifications tested to support that they were updated within five years as required by 5 MRSA 7061. Additionally, BHR’s current tracking mechanism does not effectively identify the dates of the last review and next scheduled review, thus hindering compliance with the statutory five-year cycle. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: • During fiscal year 2024, approximately $139 million in payroll expenditures were charged to Federal grants. This represents approximately ten percent of fiscal year 2024 Statewide payroll expenditures, which totaled $1.3 billion. • BHR was responsible for managing approximately 1,200 job classification specifications in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: State employee job classification and compensation may not accurately reflect the current duties and responsibilities of each position. Without documented evidence that review activities are occurring, BHR cannot ensure that the decisions involving the classification and compensation plan of all State employee positions are properly supported by documentation that accurately reflects the current duties and responsibilities of each position. As a result, this may lead to noncompliance with Federal and State regulations.   Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • enhance oversight regarding the maintenance of the State classification and compensation plan in accordance with State statute; • implement policies and procedures to ensure updates or reviews of the State classification and compensation plan at the job classification specification level are adequately documented; and • implement a tracking mechanism to accurately monitor the dates of past reviews and schedule forthcoming reviews to aid in adherence to the statutory requirement. Corrective Action Plan: See F-19 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The procedure referenced in 5 M.R.S. Sec. 7061(4) is laid out in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. The Department complies with these written policies and procedures as required by federal and state law. Section 7061(4) was last updated in 2023, with an effective date in October 2023. Pursuant to the JSC on Appropriations, Section 7061(4)(A) requires a review every five years of the state compensation plan for each class or position in the classified service. The FJA process is not related to the compensation plan, however, it is administered under a separate internal control structure that is in place and operating effectively and ensures that the compensation for individual employees is reasonable for the services rendered. The requirement for review of each classification through the FJA process is covered under Section 7061(4)(C) and is required to be reviewed every 10 years. It is also important to note that the Department has conferred with the OAG, who determined that Section 7061(4)(C) is not retroactive, meaning the Department has another 8.5 years to complete a review of all classifications. Additionally, salary studies conducted on State employee wages have shown that the salary and wages of job classifications paid by the State are consistently lower than industry averages, removing the risk that the utilization of these salary schedules as a component of payroll costs will cause overcharges to Federal grants. Contact: Michael J. Dunn, Acting State Human Resources Officer, Bureau of Human Resources, DAFS, 207-287-4651 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: OSA acknowledges BHR’s reference to 5 MRSA 7061(4), as amended in October 2023, and the procedures for the classification maintenance outlined in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. We also recognize the distinction BHR draws between the five-year statutory requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) for updating job descriptions and compensation plan components, and the ten-year classification plan review introduced under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). OSA’s review focused on BHR’s compliance with the five-year update requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A). While the statute was amended in 2023, the requirement that job descriptions be updated at least every five years has been in place since 1987. The recent amendment did not create this requirement; it expanded BHR’s obligation by tying the update process to the compensation plan and introducing a separate ten-year comprehensive classification review under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). These changes reflect an intent to strengthen oversight and modernize the State’s personnel system, not to delay or diminish BHR’s statutory responsibilities. To distinguish between BHR’s statutory responsibilities under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) and 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C), subsection (4)(A) requires periodic updating of job descriptions and the compensation plan at least every five years; this ensures that individual job classification specifications remain current and accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of State positions. In contrast, subsection (4)(C), introduced in 2023, requires a broader, ten-year comprehensive review of the classification plan as a whole. The two requirements serve different purposes and operate on separate cycles. The five-year review of individual classifications under subsection (4)(A) remains an ongoing statutory obligation, regardless of the addition of subsection (4)(C). While BHR references its internal procedures under 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4 as evidence of compliance, those procedures do not incorporate or reflect the statutory five-year update requirement in subsection (4)(A) or the ten-year update in subsection (4)(C). Furthermore, BHR could not provide documentation to support that 14 of the 19 job classifications tested by OSA had been reviewed or updated within the required timeframe. BHR does not have a comprehensive system to track classification review dates across the classification plan, making it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the statute or proactively manage updates. Internal policy may guide operations, but compliance is ultimately measured against the statutory requirements that govern those operations. The issues identified in audit testing also have implications for the compensation system. Under 5 MRSA 7065, the State’s compensation plan is developed based on the classification plan, with salary grades assigned to specific job classes according to documented duties and responsibilities. The classification plan is the foundational structure upon which compensation decisions are made. If job descriptions are outdated, or not periodically reviewed as required, positions may be misaligned with inappropriate salary grades, which may lead to pay that does not accurately reflect the nature or complexity of the work, including Federally-funded positions. Without a properly maintained classification system, the State cannot ensure that compensation, whether paid with State or Federal funds, is supported by a valid and compliant classification system. Under 2 CFR 200.430(a)(2), compensation for personal services is allowable under Federal awards only when it follows “an appointment made in accordance with the recipient’s…laws, rules, or written policies.” This Federal regulation places the burden of compliance on the State’s adherence to its own legal framework. The Federal government allows flexibility, but that flexibility hinges on the condition that the State follows its own laws; it is the minimum threshold for allowability requirements over personnel costs. Compliance with this law is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation and direct reflection of the expectations placed on the State by the Legislature and the Federal government. BHR asserts that State employee compensation is consistently below market rates and therefore poses no risk of overcharging Federal programs. Even if BHR’s current assertion that State salaries are below market is accepted, Federal guidance provides that reasonableness in amount is only one factor in determining allowability. Compensation must also follow lawful appointment processes and reflect compliance with State personnel laws. A claim of underpayment is not a compensating control to prevent noncompliance with required classification updates. The following statutes only serve to emphasize the responsibility placed upon BHR and the State Human Resources Officer. Under 5 MRSA 7036, the State Human Resources Officer is explicitly responsible for adopting rules for both classification and compensation plans (7036(I) and (J)), enforcing the Civil Service Law (7036(21)), and conducting both short-term and long-term planning for the State’s personnel system (7036(10)). The Officer is also responsible for responding to reclassification requests (7036(5)) and working closely with agencies on their personnel needs (7036(7)). These statutory responsibilities further confirm that maintaining accurate, up-to-date classification specifications is not discretionary. Moreover, failure to fulfill these legal duties has implications that underscore the purpose of a centralized human resources function. These conditions present a risk to the accessibility to public service employment, including potential delayed hiring decisions and diminished ability to attract and retain a skilled workforce. When classification structures are outdated and statutory mandates are not followed, BHR cannot deliver on its mission. We acknowledge BHR’s consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and its efforts to clarify its interpretation of the law; however, the condition observed during the audit period reflects a neutralization of internal controls and subsequent risk of noncompliance with statutory requirements that directly affect both classification and the allowability of personnel costs under Federal awards. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-0111-01)

(2024-041) Title: Internal control over monitoring of employee classification and compensation needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Human Resources Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Fish and Wildlife Cluster Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Rehabilitation Services – Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 15.605, 15.611, 15.626; 17.225; 84.027, 84.173; 84.126; 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.430; 5 MRSA 7061 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that personal services are rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, total compensation is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity, and follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity’s laws and/or rules or written policies. 5 MRSA 7061 states that the (Bureau of Human Resources (BHR)) director shall record the duties and responsibilities of all positions in State service and establish classes for these positions. The procedure shall provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. Condition: BHR maintains the job classification specifications and related compensation plan of State employees. A specific salary specification and grade is assigned based on the duties and responsibilities referenced in the job classification specification; this represents reasonable compensation for the services rendered for all positions that inhabit a given job classification specification. The assigned salary grade provides a basis for the allowability of compensation costs charged to Federal awards by documenting the reasonableness of compensation for services rendered by State employees, and that the position appointments under the job classification specification were made and maintained in accordance with State statute. While BHR relies on data collected from State agencies to implement procedures regarding the classification plan, BHR retains ultimate oversight responsibility. BHR is the only agency with the authority to modify the classification plan. According to 5 MRSA 7061, BHR must provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 19 job classification specifications for compliance with 5 MRSA 7061. BHR could not provide documentation for 14 of the 19 job classification specifications tested to support that they were updated within five years as required by 5 MRSA 7061. Additionally, BHR’s current tracking mechanism does not effectively identify the dates of the last review and next scheduled review, thus hindering compliance with the statutory five-year cycle. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: • During fiscal year 2024, approximately $139 million in payroll expenditures were charged to Federal grants. This represents approximately ten percent of fiscal year 2024 Statewide payroll expenditures, which totaled $1.3 billion. • BHR was responsible for managing approximately 1,200 job classification specifications in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: State employee job classification and compensation may not accurately reflect the current duties and responsibilities of each position. Without documented evidence that review activities are occurring, BHR cannot ensure that the decisions involving the classification and compensation plan of all State employee positions are properly supported by documentation that accurately reflects the current duties and responsibilities of each position. As a result, this may lead to noncompliance with Federal and State regulations.   Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • enhance oversight regarding the maintenance of the State classification and compensation plan in accordance with State statute; • implement policies and procedures to ensure updates or reviews of the State classification and compensation plan at the job classification specification level are adequately documented; and • implement a tracking mechanism to accurately monitor the dates of past reviews and schedule forthcoming reviews to aid in adherence to the statutory requirement. Corrective Action Plan: See F-19 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The procedure referenced in 5 M.R.S. Sec. 7061(4) is laid out in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. The Department complies with these written policies and procedures as required by federal and state law. Section 7061(4) was last updated in 2023, with an effective date in October 2023. Pursuant to the JSC on Appropriations, Section 7061(4)(A) requires a review every five years of the state compensation plan for each class or position in the classified service. The FJA process is not related to the compensation plan, however, it is administered under a separate internal control structure that is in place and operating effectively and ensures that the compensation for individual employees is reasonable for the services rendered. The requirement for review of each classification through the FJA process is covered under Section 7061(4)(C) and is required to be reviewed every 10 years. It is also important to note that the Department has conferred with the OAG, who determined that Section 7061(4)(C) is not retroactive, meaning the Department has another 8.5 years to complete a review of all classifications. Additionally, salary studies conducted on State employee wages have shown that the salary and wages of job classifications paid by the State are consistently lower than industry averages, removing the risk that the utilization of these salary schedules as a component of payroll costs will cause overcharges to Federal grants. Contact: Michael J. Dunn, Acting State Human Resources Officer, Bureau of Human Resources, DAFS, 207-287-4651 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: OSA acknowledges BHR’s reference to 5 MRSA 7061(4), as amended in October 2023, and the procedures for the classification maintenance outlined in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. We also recognize the distinction BHR draws between the five-year statutory requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) for updating job descriptions and compensation plan components, and the ten-year classification plan review introduced under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). OSA’s review focused on BHR’s compliance with the five-year update requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A). While the statute was amended in 2023, the requirement that job descriptions be updated at least every five years has been in place since 1987. The recent amendment did not create this requirement; it expanded BHR’s obligation by tying the update process to the compensation plan and introducing a separate ten-year comprehensive classification review under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). These changes reflect an intent to strengthen oversight and modernize the State’s personnel system, not to delay or diminish BHR’s statutory responsibilities. To distinguish between BHR’s statutory responsibilities under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) and 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C), subsection (4)(A) requires periodic updating of job descriptions and the compensation plan at least every five years; this ensures that individual job classification specifications remain current and accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of State positions. In contrast, subsection (4)(C), introduced in 2023, requires a broader, ten-year comprehensive review of the classification plan as a whole. The two requirements serve different purposes and operate on separate cycles. The five-year review of individual classifications under subsection (4)(A) remains an ongoing statutory obligation, regardless of the addition of subsection (4)(C). While BHR references its internal procedures under 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4 as evidence of compliance, those procedures do not incorporate or reflect the statutory five-year update requirement in subsection (4)(A) or the ten-year update in subsection (4)(C). Furthermore, BHR could not provide documentation to support that 14 of the 19 job classifications tested by OSA had been reviewed or updated within the required timeframe. BHR does not have a comprehensive system to track classification review dates across the classification plan, making it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the statute or proactively manage updates. Internal policy may guide operations, but compliance is ultimately measured against the statutory requirements that govern those operations. The issues identified in audit testing also have implications for the compensation system. Under 5 MRSA 7065, the State’s compensation plan is developed based on the classification plan, with salary grades assigned to specific job classes according to documented duties and responsibilities. The classification plan is the foundational structure upon which compensation decisions are made. If job descriptions are outdated, or not periodically reviewed as required, positions may be misaligned with inappropriate salary grades, which may lead to pay that does not accurately reflect the nature or complexity of the work, including Federally-funded positions. Without a properly maintained classification system, the State cannot ensure that compensation, whether paid with State or Federal funds, is supported by a valid and compliant classification system. Under 2 CFR 200.430(a)(2), compensation for personal services is allowable under Federal awards only when it follows “an appointment made in accordance with the recipient’s…laws, rules, or written policies.” This Federal regulation places the burden of compliance on the State’s adherence to its own legal framework. The Federal government allows flexibility, but that flexibility hinges on the condition that the State follows its own laws; it is the minimum threshold for allowability requirements over personnel costs. Compliance with this law is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation and direct reflection of the expectations placed on the State by the Legislature and the Federal government. BHR asserts that State employee compensation is consistently below market rates and therefore poses no risk of overcharging Federal programs. Even if BHR’s current assertion that State salaries are below market is accepted, Federal guidance provides that reasonableness in amount is only one factor in determining allowability. Compensation must also follow lawful appointment processes and reflect compliance with State personnel laws. A claim of underpayment is not a compensating control to prevent noncompliance with required classification updates. The following statutes only serve to emphasize the responsibility placed upon BHR and the State Human Resources Officer. Under 5 MRSA 7036, the State Human Resources Officer is explicitly responsible for adopting rules for both classification and compensation plans (7036(I) and (J)), enforcing the Civil Service Law (7036(21)), and conducting both short-term and long-term planning for the State’s personnel system (7036(10)). The Officer is also responsible for responding to reclassification requests (7036(5)) and working closely with agencies on their personnel needs (7036(7)). These statutory responsibilities further confirm that maintaining accurate, up-to-date classification specifications is not discretionary. Moreover, failure to fulfill these legal duties has implications that underscore the purpose of a centralized human resources function. These conditions present a risk to the accessibility to public service employment, including potential delayed hiring decisions and diminished ability to attract and retain a skilled workforce. When classification structures are outdated and statutory mandates are not followed, BHR cannot deliver on its mission. We acknowledge BHR’s consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and its efforts to clarify its interpretation of the law; however, the condition observed during the audit period reflects a neutralization of internal controls and subsequent risk of noncompliance with statutory requirements that directly affect both classification and the allowability of personnel costs under Federal awards. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-0111-01)

(2024-041) Title: Internal control over monitoring of employee classification and compensation needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Human Resources Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Fish and Wildlife Cluster Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Rehabilitation Services – Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 15.605, 15.611, 15.626; 17.225; 84.027, 84.173; 84.126; 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.430; 5 MRSA 7061 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that personal services are rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, total compensation is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity, and follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity’s laws and/or rules or written policies. 5 MRSA 7061 states that the (Bureau of Human Resources (BHR)) director shall record the duties and responsibilities of all positions in State service and establish classes for these positions. The procedure shall provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. Condition: BHR maintains the job classification specifications and related compensation plan of State employees. A specific salary specification and grade is assigned based on the duties and responsibilities referenced in the job classification specification; this represents reasonable compensation for the services rendered for all positions that inhabit a given job classification specification. The assigned salary grade provides a basis for the allowability of compensation costs charged to Federal awards by documenting the reasonableness of compensation for services rendered by State employees, and that the position appointments under the job classification specification were made and maintained in accordance with State statute. While BHR relies on data collected from State agencies to implement procedures regarding the classification plan, BHR retains ultimate oversight responsibility. BHR is the only agency with the authority to modify the classification plan. According to 5 MRSA 7061, BHR must provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 19 job classification specifications for compliance with 5 MRSA 7061. BHR could not provide documentation for 14 of the 19 job classification specifications tested to support that they were updated within five years as required by 5 MRSA 7061. Additionally, BHR’s current tracking mechanism does not effectively identify the dates of the last review and next scheduled review, thus hindering compliance with the statutory five-year cycle. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: • During fiscal year 2024, approximately $139 million in payroll expenditures were charged to Federal grants. This represents approximately ten percent of fiscal year 2024 Statewide payroll expenditures, which totaled $1.3 billion. • BHR was responsible for managing approximately 1,200 job classification specifications in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: State employee job classification and compensation may not accurately reflect the current duties and responsibilities of each position. Without documented evidence that review activities are occurring, BHR cannot ensure that the decisions involving the classification and compensation plan of all State employee positions are properly supported by documentation that accurately reflects the current duties and responsibilities of each position. As a result, this may lead to noncompliance with Federal and State regulations.   Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • enhance oversight regarding the maintenance of the State classification and compensation plan in accordance with State statute; • implement policies and procedures to ensure updates or reviews of the State classification and compensation plan at the job classification specification level are adequately documented; and • implement a tracking mechanism to accurately monitor the dates of past reviews and schedule forthcoming reviews to aid in adherence to the statutory requirement. Corrective Action Plan: See F-19 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The procedure referenced in 5 M.R.S. Sec. 7061(4) is laid out in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. The Department complies with these written policies and procedures as required by federal and state law. Section 7061(4) was last updated in 2023, with an effective date in October 2023. Pursuant to the JSC on Appropriations, Section 7061(4)(A) requires a review every five years of the state compensation plan for each class or position in the classified service. The FJA process is not related to the compensation plan, however, it is administered under a separate internal control structure that is in place and operating effectively and ensures that the compensation for individual employees is reasonable for the services rendered. The requirement for review of each classification through the FJA process is covered under Section 7061(4)(C) and is required to be reviewed every 10 years. It is also important to note that the Department has conferred with the OAG, who determined that Section 7061(4)(C) is not retroactive, meaning the Department has another 8.5 years to complete a review of all classifications. Additionally, salary studies conducted on State employee wages have shown that the salary and wages of job classifications paid by the State are consistently lower than industry averages, removing the risk that the utilization of these salary schedules as a component of payroll costs will cause overcharges to Federal grants. Contact: Michael J. Dunn, Acting State Human Resources Officer, Bureau of Human Resources, DAFS, 207-287-4651 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: OSA acknowledges BHR’s reference to 5 MRSA 7061(4), as amended in October 2023, and the procedures for the classification maintenance outlined in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. We also recognize the distinction BHR draws between the five-year statutory requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) for updating job descriptions and compensation plan components, and the ten-year classification plan review introduced under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). OSA’s review focused on BHR’s compliance with the five-year update requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A). While the statute was amended in 2023, the requirement that job descriptions be updated at least every five years has been in place since 1987. The recent amendment did not create this requirement; it expanded BHR’s obligation by tying the update process to the compensation plan and introducing a separate ten-year comprehensive classification review under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). These changes reflect an intent to strengthen oversight and modernize the State’s personnel system, not to delay or diminish BHR’s statutory responsibilities. To distinguish between BHR’s statutory responsibilities under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) and 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C), subsection (4)(A) requires periodic updating of job descriptions and the compensation plan at least every five years; this ensures that individual job classification specifications remain current and accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of State positions. In contrast, subsection (4)(C), introduced in 2023, requires a broader, ten-year comprehensive review of the classification plan as a whole. The two requirements serve different purposes and operate on separate cycles. The five-year review of individual classifications under subsection (4)(A) remains an ongoing statutory obligation, regardless of the addition of subsection (4)(C). While BHR references its internal procedures under 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4 as evidence of compliance, those procedures do not incorporate or reflect the statutory five-year update requirement in subsection (4)(A) or the ten-year update in subsection (4)(C). Furthermore, BHR could not provide documentation to support that 14 of the 19 job classifications tested by OSA had been reviewed or updated within the required timeframe. BHR does not have a comprehensive system to track classification review dates across the classification plan, making it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the statute or proactively manage updates. Internal policy may guide operations, but compliance is ultimately measured against the statutory requirements that govern those operations. The issues identified in audit testing also have implications for the compensation system. Under 5 MRSA 7065, the State’s compensation plan is developed based on the classification plan, with salary grades assigned to specific job classes according to documented duties and responsibilities. The classification plan is the foundational structure upon which compensation decisions are made. If job descriptions are outdated, or not periodically reviewed as required, positions may be misaligned with inappropriate salary grades, which may lead to pay that does not accurately reflect the nature or complexity of the work, including Federally-funded positions. Without a properly maintained classification system, the State cannot ensure that compensation, whether paid with State or Federal funds, is supported by a valid and compliant classification system. Under 2 CFR 200.430(a)(2), compensation for personal services is allowable under Federal awards only when it follows “an appointment made in accordance with the recipient’s…laws, rules, or written policies.” This Federal regulation places the burden of compliance on the State’s adherence to its own legal framework. The Federal government allows flexibility, but that flexibility hinges on the condition that the State follows its own laws; it is the minimum threshold for allowability requirements over personnel costs. Compliance with this law is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation and direct reflection of the expectations placed on the State by the Legislature and the Federal government. BHR asserts that State employee compensation is consistently below market rates and therefore poses no risk of overcharging Federal programs. Even if BHR’s current assertion that State salaries are below market is accepted, Federal guidance provides that reasonableness in amount is only one factor in determining allowability. Compensation must also follow lawful appointment processes and reflect compliance with State personnel laws. A claim of underpayment is not a compensating control to prevent noncompliance with required classification updates. The following statutes only serve to emphasize the responsibility placed upon BHR and the State Human Resources Officer. Under 5 MRSA 7036, the State Human Resources Officer is explicitly responsible for adopting rules for both classification and compensation plans (7036(I) and (J)), enforcing the Civil Service Law (7036(21)), and conducting both short-term and long-term planning for the State’s personnel system (7036(10)). The Officer is also responsible for responding to reclassification requests (7036(5)) and working closely with agencies on their personnel needs (7036(7)). These statutory responsibilities further confirm that maintaining accurate, up-to-date classification specifications is not discretionary. Moreover, failure to fulfill these legal duties has implications that underscore the purpose of a centralized human resources function. These conditions present a risk to the accessibility to public service employment, including potential delayed hiring decisions and diminished ability to attract and retain a skilled workforce. When classification structures are outdated and statutory mandates are not followed, BHR cannot deliver on its mission. We acknowledge BHR’s consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and its efforts to clarify its interpretation of the law; however, the condition observed during the audit period reflects a neutralization of internal controls and subsequent risk of noncompliance with statutory requirements that directly affect both classification and the allowability of personnel costs under Federal awards. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-0111-01)

(2024-041) Title: Internal control over monitoring of employee classification and compensation needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Human Resources Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Fish and Wildlife Cluster Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Rehabilitation Services – Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 15.605, 15.611, 15.626; 17.225; 84.027, 84.173; 84.126; 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.430; 5 MRSA 7061 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that personal services are rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, total compensation is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity, and follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity’s laws and/or rules or written policies. 5 MRSA 7061 states that the (Bureau of Human Resources (BHR)) director shall record the duties and responsibilities of all positions in State service and establish classes for these positions. The procedure shall provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. Condition: BHR maintains the job classification specifications and related compensation plan of State employees. A specific salary specification and grade is assigned based on the duties and responsibilities referenced in the job classification specification; this represents reasonable compensation for the services rendered for all positions that inhabit a given job classification specification. The assigned salary grade provides a basis for the allowability of compensation costs charged to Federal awards by documenting the reasonableness of compensation for services rendered by State employees, and that the position appointments under the job classification specification were made and maintained in accordance with State statute. While BHR relies on data collected from State agencies to implement procedures regarding the classification plan, BHR retains ultimate oversight responsibility. BHR is the only agency with the authority to modify the classification plan. According to 5 MRSA 7061, BHR must provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 19 job classification specifications for compliance with 5 MRSA 7061. BHR could not provide documentation for 14 of the 19 job classification specifications tested to support that they were updated within five years as required by 5 MRSA 7061. Additionally, BHR’s current tracking mechanism does not effectively identify the dates of the last review and next scheduled review, thus hindering compliance with the statutory five-year cycle. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: • During fiscal year 2024, approximately $139 million in payroll expenditures were charged to Federal grants. This represents approximately ten percent of fiscal year 2024 Statewide payroll expenditures, which totaled $1.3 billion. • BHR was responsible for managing approximately 1,200 job classification specifications in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: State employee job classification and compensation may not accurately reflect the current duties and responsibilities of each position. Without documented evidence that review activities are occurring, BHR cannot ensure that the decisions involving the classification and compensation plan of all State employee positions are properly supported by documentation that accurately reflects the current duties and responsibilities of each position. As a result, this may lead to noncompliance with Federal and State regulations.   Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • enhance oversight regarding the maintenance of the State classification and compensation plan in accordance with State statute; • implement policies and procedures to ensure updates or reviews of the State classification and compensation plan at the job classification specification level are adequately documented; and • implement a tracking mechanism to accurately monitor the dates of past reviews and schedule forthcoming reviews to aid in adherence to the statutory requirement. Corrective Action Plan: See F-19 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The procedure referenced in 5 M.R.S. Sec. 7061(4) is laid out in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. The Department complies with these written policies and procedures as required by federal and state law. Section 7061(4) was last updated in 2023, with an effective date in October 2023. Pursuant to the JSC on Appropriations, Section 7061(4)(A) requires a review every five years of the state compensation plan for each class or position in the classified service. The FJA process is not related to the compensation plan, however, it is administered under a separate internal control structure that is in place and operating effectively and ensures that the compensation for individual employees is reasonable for the services rendered. The requirement for review of each classification through the FJA process is covered under Section 7061(4)(C) and is required to be reviewed every 10 years. It is also important to note that the Department has conferred with the OAG, who determined that Section 7061(4)(C) is not retroactive, meaning the Department has another 8.5 years to complete a review of all classifications. Additionally, salary studies conducted on State employee wages have shown that the salary and wages of job classifications paid by the State are consistently lower than industry averages, removing the risk that the utilization of these salary schedules as a component of payroll costs will cause overcharges to Federal grants. Contact: Michael J. Dunn, Acting State Human Resources Officer, Bureau of Human Resources, DAFS, 207-287-4651 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: OSA acknowledges BHR’s reference to 5 MRSA 7061(4), as amended in October 2023, and the procedures for the classification maintenance outlined in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. We also recognize the distinction BHR draws between the five-year statutory requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) for updating job descriptions and compensation plan components, and the ten-year classification plan review introduced under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). OSA’s review focused on BHR’s compliance with the five-year update requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A). While the statute was amended in 2023, the requirement that job descriptions be updated at least every five years has been in place since 1987. The recent amendment did not create this requirement; it expanded BHR’s obligation by tying the update process to the compensation plan and introducing a separate ten-year comprehensive classification review under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). These changes reflect an intent to strengthen oversight and modernize the State’s personnel system, not to delay or diminish BHR’s statutory responsibilities. To distinguish between BHR’s statutory responsibilities under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) and 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C), subsection (4)(A) requires periodic updating of job descriptions and the compensation plan at least every five years; this ensures that individual job classification specifications remain current and accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of State positions. In contrast, subsection (4)(C), introduced in 2023, requires a broader, ten-year comprehensive review of the classification plan as a whole. The two requirements serve different purposes and operate on separate cycles. The five-year review of individual classifications under subsection (4)(A) remains an ongoing statutory obligation, regardless of the addition of subsection (4)(C). While BHR references its internal procedures under 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4 as evidence of compliance, those procedures do not incorporate or reflect the statutory five-year update requirement in subsection (4)(A) or the ten-year update in subsection (4)(C). Furthermore, BHR could not provide documentation to support that 14 of the 19 job classifications tested by OSA had been reviewed or updated within the required timeframe. BHR does not have a comprehensive system to track classification review dates across the classification plan, making it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the statute or proactively manage updates. Internal policy may guide operations, but compliance is ultimately measured against the statutory requirements that govern those operations. The issues identified in audit testing also have implications for the compensation system. Under 5 MRSA 7065, the State’s compensation plan is developed based on the classification plan, with salary grades assigned to specific job classes according to documented duties and responsibilities. The classification plan is the foundational structure upon which compensation decisions are made. If job descriptions are outdated, or not periodically reviewed as required, positions may be misaligned with inappropriate salary grades, which may lead to pay that does not accurately reflect the nature or complexity of the work, including Federally-funded positions. Without a properly maintained classification system, the State cannot ensure that compensation, whether paid with State or Federal funds, is supported by a valid and compliant classification system. Under 2 CFR 200.430(a)(2), compensation for personal services is allowable under Federal awards only when it follows “an appointment made in accordance with the recipient’s…laws, rules, or written policies.” This Federal regulation places the burden of compliance on the State’s adherence to its own legal framework. The Federal government allows flexibility, but that flexibility hinges on the condition that the State follows its own laws; it is the minimum threshold for allowability requirements over personnel costs. Compliance with this law is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation and direct reflection of the expectations placed on the State by the Legislature and the Federal government. BHR asserts that State employee compensation is consistently below market rates and therefore poses no risk of overcharging Federal programs. Even if BHR’s current assertion that State salaries are below market is accepted, Federal guidance provides that reasonableness in amount is only one factor in determining allowability. Compensation must also follow lawful appointment processes and reflect compliance with State personnel laws. A claim of underpayment is not a compensating control to prevent noncompliance with required classification updates. The following statutes only serve to emphasize the responsibility placed upon BHR and the State Human Resources Officer. Under 5 MRSA 7036, the State Human Resources Officer is explicitly responsible for adopting rules for both classification and compensation plans (7036(I) and (J)), enforcing the Civil Service Law (7036(21)), and conducting both short-term and long-term planning for the State’s personnel system (7036(10)). The Officer is also responsible for responding to reclassification requests (7036(5)) and working closely with agencies on their personnel needs (7036(7)). These statutory responsibilities further confirm that maintaining accurate, up-to-date classification specifications is not discretionary. Moreover, failure to fulfill these legal duties has implications that underscore the purpose of a centralized human resources function. These conditions present a risk to the accessibility to public service employment, including potential delayed hiring decisions and diminished ability to attract and retain a skilled workforce. When classification structures are outdated and statutory mandates are not followed, BHR cannot deliver on its mission. We acknowledge BHR’s consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and its efforts to clarify its interpretation of the law; however, the condition observed during the audit period reflects a neutralization of internal controls and subsequent risk of noncompliance with statutory requirements that directly affect both classification and the allowability of personnel costs under Federal awards. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-0111-01)

(2024-041) Title: Internal control over monitoring of employee classification and compensation needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Human Resources Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Fish and Wildlife Cluster Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Rehabilitation Services – Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 15.605, 15.611, 15.626; 17.225; 84.027, 84.173; 84.126; 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.430; 5 MRSA 7061 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that personal services are rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, total compensation is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity, and follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity’s laws and/or rules or written policies. 5 MRSA 7061 states that the (Bureau of Human Resources (BHR)) director shall record the duties and responsibilities of all positions in State service and establish classes for these positions. The procedure shall provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. Condition: BHR maintains the job classification specifications and related compensation plan of State employees. A specific salary specification and grade is assigned based on the duties and responsibilities referenced in the job classification specification; this represents reasonable compensation for the services rendered for all positions that inhabit a given job classification specification. The assigned salary grade provides a basis for the allowability of compensation costs charged to Federal awards by documenting the reasonableness of compensation for services rendered by State employees, and that the position appointments under the job classification specification were made and maintained in accordance with State statute. While BHR relies on data collected from State agencies to implement procedures regarding the classification plan, BHR retains ultimate oversight responsibility. BHR is the only agency with the authority to modify the classification plan. According to 5 MRSA 7061, BHR must provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 19 job classification specifications for compliance with 5 MRSA 7061. BHR could not provide documentation for 14 of the 19 job classification specifications tested to support that they were updated within five years as required by 5 MRSA 7061. Additionally, BHR’s current tracking mechanism does not effectively identify the dates of the last review and next scheduled review, thus hindering compliance with the statutory five-year cycle. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: • During fiscal year 2024, approximately $139 million in payroll expenditures were charged to Federal grants. This represents approximately ten percent of fiscal year 2024 Statewide payroll expenditures, which totaled $1.3 billion. • BHR was responsible for managing approximately 1,200 job classification specifications in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: State employee job classification and compensation may not accurately reflect the current duties and responsibilities of each position. Without documented evidence that review activities are occurring, BHR cannot ensure that the decisions involving the classification and compensation plan of all State employee positions are properly supported by documentation that accurately reflects the current duties and responsibilities of each position. As a result, this may lead to noncompliance with Federal and State regulations.   Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • enhance oversight regarding the maintenance of the State classification and compensation plan in accordance with State statute; • implement policies and procedures to ensure updates or reviews of the State classification and compensation plan at the job classification specification level are adequately documented; and • implement a tracking mechanism to accurately monitor the dates of past reviews and schedule forthcoming reviews to aid in adherence to the statutory requirement. Corrective Action Plan: See F-19 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The procedure referenced in 5 M.R.S. Sec. 7061(4) is laid out in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. The Department complies with these written policies and procedures as required by federal and state law. Section 7061(4) was last updated in 2023, with an effective date in October 2023. Pursuant to the JSC on Appropriations, Section 7061(4)(A) requires a review every five years of the state compensation plan for each class or position in the classified service. The FJA process is not related to the compensation plan, however, it is administered under a separate internal control structure that is in place and operating effectively and ensures that the compensation for individual employees is reasonable for the services rendered. The requirement for review of each classification through the FJA process is covered under Section 7061(4)(C) and is required to be reviewed every 10 years. It is also important to note that the Department has conferred with the OAG, who determined that Section 7061(4)(C) is not retroactive, meaning the Department has another 8.5 years to complete a review of all classifications. Additionally, salary studies conducted on State employee wages have shown that the salary and wages of job classifications paid by the State are consistently lower than industry averages, removing the risk that the utilization of these salary schedules as a component of payroll costs will cause overcharges to Federal grants. Contact: Michael J. Dunn, Acting State Human Resources Officer, Bureau of Human Resources, DAFS, 207-287-4651 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: OSA acknowledges BHR’s reference to 5 MRSA 7061(4), as amended in October 2023, and the procedures for the classification maintenance outlined in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. We also recognize the distinction BHR draws between the five-year statutory requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) for updating job descriptions and compensation plan components, and the ten-year classification plan review introduced under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). OSA’s review focused on BHR’s compliance with the five-year update requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A). While the statute was amended in 2023, the requirement that job descriptions be updated at least every five years has been in place since 1987. The recent amendment did not create this requirement; it expanded BHR’s obligation by tying the update process to the compensation plan and introducing a separate ten-year comprehensive classification review under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). These changes reflect an intent to strengthen oversight and modernize the State’s personnel system, not to delay or diminish BHR’s statutory responsibilities. To distinguish between BHR’s statutory responsibilities under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) and 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C), subsection (4)(A) requires periodic updating of job descriptions and the compensation plan at least every five years; this ensures that individual job classification specifications remain current and accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of State positions. In contrast, subsection (4)(C), introduced in 2023, requires a broader, ten-year comprehensive review of the classification plan as a whole. The two requirements serve different purposes and operate on separate cycles. The five-year review of individual classifications under subsection (4)(A) remains an ongoing statutory obligation, regardless of the addition of subsection (4)(C). While BHR references its internal procedures under 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4 as evidence of compliance, those procedures do not incorporate or reflect the statutory five-year update requirement in subsection (4)(A) or the ten-year update in subsection (4)(C). Furthermore, BHR could not provide documentation to support that 14 of the 19 job classifications tested by OSA had been reviewed or updated within the required timeframe. BHR does not have a comprehensive system to track classification review dates across the classification plan, making it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the statute or proactively manage updates. Internal policy may guide operations, but compliance is ultimately measured against the statutory requirements that govern those operations. The issues identified in audit testing also have implications for the compensation system. Under 5 MRSA 7065, the State’s compensation plan is developed based on the classification plan, with salary grades assigned to specific job classes according to documented duties and responsibilities. The classification plan is the foundational structure upon which compensation decisions are made. If job descriptions are outdated, or not periodically reviewed as required, positions may be misaligned with inappropriate salary grades, which may lead to pay that does not accurately reflect the nature or complexity of the work, including Federally-funded positions. Without a properly maintained classification system, the State cannot ensure that compensation, whether paid with State or Federal funds, is supported by a valid and compliant classification system. Under 2 CFR 200.430(a)(2), compensation for personal services is allowable under Federal awards only when it follows “an appointment made in accordance with the recipient’s…laws, rules, or written policies.” This Federal regulation places the burden of compliance on the State’s adherence to its own legal framework. The Federal government allows flexibility, but that flexibility hinges on the condition that the State follows its own laws; it is the minimum threshold for allowability requirements over personnel costs. Compliance with this law is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation and direct reflection of the expectations placed on the State by the Legislature and the Federal government. BHR asserts that State employee compensation is consistently below market rates and therefore poses no risk of overcharging Federal programs. Even if BHR’s current assertion that State salaries are below market is accepted, Federal guidance provides that reasonableness in amount is only one factor in determining allowability. Compensation must also follow lawful appointment processes and reflect compliance with State personnel laws. A claim of underpayment is not a compensating control to prevent noncompliance with required classification updates. The following statutes only serve to emphasize the responsibility placed upon BHR and the State Human Resources Officer. Under 5 MRSA 7036, the State Human Resources Officer is explicitly responsible for adopting rules for both classification and compensation plans (7036(I) and (J)), enforcing the Civil Service Law (7036(21)), and conducting both short-term and long-term planning for the State’s personnel system (7036(10)). The Officer is also responsible for responding to reclassification requests (7036(5)) and working closely with agencies on their personnel needs (7036(7)). These statutory responsibilities further confirm that maintaining accurate, up-to-date classification specifications is not discretionary. Moreover, failure to fulfill these legal duties has implications that underscore the purpose of a centralized human resources function. These conditions present a risk to the accessibility to public service employment, including potential delayed hiring decisions and diminished ability to attract and retain a skilled workforce. When classification structures are outdated and statutory mandates are not followed, BHR cannot deliver on its mission. We acknowledge BHR’s consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and its efforts to clarify its interpretation of the law; however, the condition observed during the audit period reflects a neutralization of internal controls and subsequent risk of noncompliance with statutory requirements that directly affect both classification and the allowability of personnel costs under Federal awards. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-0111-01)

(2024-041) Title: Internal control over monitoring of employee classification and compensation needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Human Resources Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Fish and Wildlife Cluster Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Rehabilitation Services – Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 15.605, 15.611, 15.626; 17.225; 84.027, 84.173; 84.126; 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.430; 5 MRSA 7061 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that personal services are rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, total compensation is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity, and follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity’s laws and/or rules or written policies. 5 MRSA 7061 states that the (Bureau of Human Resources (BHR)) director shall record the duties and responsibilities of all positions in State service and establish classes for these positions. The procedure shall provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. Condition: BHR maintains the job classification specifications and related compensation plan of State employees. A specific salary specification and grade is assigned based on the duties and responsibilities referenced in the job classification specification; this represents reasonable compensation for the services rendered for all positions that inhabit a given job classification specification. The assigned salary grade provides a basis for the allowability of compensation costs charged to Federal awards by documenting the reasonableness of compensation for services rendered by State employees, and that the position appointments under the job classification specification were made and maintained in accordance with State statute. While BHR relies on data collected from State agencies to implement procedures regarding the classification plan, BHR retains ultimate oversight responsibility. BHR is the only agency with the authority to modify the classification plan. According to 5 MRSA 7061, BHR must provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 19 job classification specifications for compliance with 5 MRSA 7061. BHR could not provide documentation for 14 of the 19 job classification specifications tested to support that they were updated within five years as required by 5 MRSA 7061. Additionally, BHR’s current tracking mechanism does not effectively identify the dates of the last review and next scheduled review, thus hindering compliance with the statutory five-year cycle. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: • During fiscal year 2024, approximately $139 million in payroll expenditures were charged to Federal grants. This represents approximately ten percent of fiscal year 2024 Statewide payroll expenditures, which totaled $1.3 billion. • BHR was responsible for managing approximately 1,200 job classification specifications in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: State employee job classification and compensation may not accurately reflect the current duties and responsibilities of each position. Without documented evidence that review activities are occurring, BHR cannot ensure that the decisions involving the classification and compensation plan of all State employee positions are properly supported by documentation that accurately reflects the current duties and responsibilities of each position. As a result, this may lead to noncompliance with Federal and State regulations.   Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • enhance oversight regarding the maintenance of the State classification and compensation plan in accordance with State statute; • implement policies and procedures to ensure updates or reviews of the State classification and compensation plan at the job classification specification level are adequately documented; and • implement a tracking mechanism to accurately monitor the dates of past reviews and schedule forthcoming reviews to aid in adherence to the statutory requirement. Corrective Action Plan: See F-19 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The procedure referenced in 5 M.R.S. Sec. 7061(4) is laid out in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. The Department complies with these written policies and procedures as required by federal and state law. Section 7061(4) was last updated in 2023, with an effective date in October 2023. Pursuant to the JSC on Appropriations, Section 7061(4)(A) requires a review every five years of the state compensation plan for each class or position in the classified service. The FJA process is not related to the compensation plan, however, it is administered under a separate internal control structure that is in place and operating effectively and ensures that the compensation for individual employees is reasonable for the services rendered. The requirement for review of each classification through the FJA process is covered under Section 7061(4)(C) and is required to be reviewed every 10 years. It is also important to note that the Department has conferred with the OAG, who determined that Section 7061(4)(C) is not retroactive, meaning the Department has another 8.5 years to complete a review of all classifications. Additionally, salary studies conducted on State employee wages have shown that the salary and wages of job classifications paid by the State are consistently lower than industry averages, removing the risk that the utilization of these salary schedules as a component of payroll costs will cause overcharges to Federal grants. Contact: Michael J. Dunn, Acting State Human Resources Officer, Bureau of Human Resources, DAFS, 207-287-4651 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: OSA acknowledges BHR’s reference to 5 MRSA 7061(4), as amended in October 2023, and the procedures for the classification maintenance outlined in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. We also recognize the distinction BHR draws between the five-year statutory requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) for updating job descriptions and compensation plan components, and the ten-year classification plan review introduced under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). OSA’s review focused on BHR’s compliance with the five-year update requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A). While the statute was amended in 2023, the requirement that job descriptions be updated at least every five years has been in place since 1987. The recent amendment did not create this requirement; it expanded BHR’s obligation by tying the update process to the compensation plan and introducing a separate ten-year comprehensive classification review under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). These changes reflect an intent to strengthen oversight and modernize the State’s personnel system, not to delay or diminish BHR’s statutory responsibilities. To distinguish between BHR’s statutory responsibilities under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) and 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C), subsection (4)(A) requires periodic updating of job descriptions and the compensation plan at least every five years; this ensures that individual job classification specifications remain current and accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of State positions. In contrast, subsection (4)(C), introduced in 2023, requires a broader, ten-year comprehensive review of the classification plan as a whole. The two requirements serve different purposes and operate on separate cycles. The five-year review of individual classifications under subsection (4)(A) remains an ongoing statutory obligation, regardless of the addition of subsection (4)(C). While BHR references its internal procedures under 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4 as evidence of compliance, those procedures do not incorporate or reflect the statutory five-year update requirement in subsection (4)(A) or the ten-year update in subsection (4)(C). Furthermore, BHR could not provide documentation to support that 14 of the 19 job classifications tested by OSA had been reviewed or updated within the required timeframe. BHR does not have a comprehensive system to track classification review dates across the classification plan, making it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the statute or proactively manage updates. Internal policy may guide operations, but compliance is ultimately measured against the statutory requirements that govern those operations. The issues identified in audit testing also have implications for the compensation system. Under 5 MRSA 7065, the State’s compensation plan is developed based on the classification plan, with salary grades assigned to specific job classes according to documented duties and responsibilities. The classification plan is the foundational structure upon which compensation decisions are made. If job descriptions are outdated, or not periodically reviewed as required, positions may be misaligned with inappropriate salary grades, which may lead to pay that does not accurately reflect the nature or complexity of the work, including Federally-funded positions. Without a properly maintained classification system, the State cannot ensure that compensation, whether paid with State or Federal funds, is supported by a valid and compliant classification system. Under 2 CFR 200.430(a)(2), compensation for personal services is allowable under Federal awards only when it follows “an appointment made in accordance with the recipient’s…laws, rules, or written policies.” This Federal regulation places the burden of compliance on the State’s adherence to its own legal framework. The Federal government allows flexibility, but that flexibility hinges on the condition that the State follows its own laws; it is the minimum threshold for allowability requirements over personnel costs. Compliance with this law is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation and direct reflection of the expectations placed on the State by the Legislature and the Federal government. BHR asserts that State employee compensation is consistently below market rates and therefore poses no risk of overcharging Federal programs. Even if BHR’s current assertion that State salaries are below market is accepted, Federal guidance provides that reasonableness in amount is only one factor in determining allowability. Compensation must also follow lawful appointment processes and reflect compliance with State personnel laws. A claim of underpayment is not a compensating control to prevent noncompliance with required classification updates. The following statutes only serve to emphasize the responsibility placed upon BHR and the State Human Resources Officer. Under 5 MRSA 7036, the State Human Resources Officer is explicitly responsible for adopting rules for both classification and compensation plans (7036(I) and (J)), enforcing the Civil Service Law (7036(21)), and conducting both short-term and long-term planning for the State’s personnel system (7036(10)). The Officer is also responsible for responding to reclassification requests (7036(5)) and working closely with agencies on their personnel needs (7036(7)). These statutory responsibilities further confirm that maintaining accurate, up-to-date classification specifications is not discretionary. Moreover, failure to fulfill these legal duties has implications that underscore the purpose of a centralized human resources function. These conditions present a risk to the accessibility to public service employment, including potential delayed hiring decisions and diminished ability to attract and retain a skilled workforce. When classification structures are outdated and statutory mandates are not followed, BHR cannot deliver on its mission. We acknowledge BHR’s consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and its efforts to clarify its interpretation of the law; however, the condition observed during the audit period reflects a neutralization of internal controls and subsequent risk of noncompliance with statutory requirements that directly affect both classification and the allowability of personnel costs under Federal awards. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-0111-01)

(2024-041) Title: Internal control over monitoring of employee classification and compensation needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Human Resources Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Fish and Wildlife Cluster Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Rehabilitation Services – Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 15.605, 15.611, 15.626; 17.225; 84.027, 84.173; 84.126; 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.430; 5 MRSA 7061 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that personal services are rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, total compensation is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity, and follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity’s laws and/or rules or written policies. 5 MRSA 7061 states that the (Bureau of Human Resources (BHR)) director shall record the duties and responsibilities of all positions in State service and establish classes for these positions. The procedure shall provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. Condition: BHR maintains the job classification specifications and related compensation plan of State employees. A specific salary specification and grade is assigned based on the duties and responsibilities referenced in the job classification specification; this represents reasonable compensation for the services rendered for all positions that inhabit a given job classification specification. The assigned salary grade provides a basis for the allowability of compensation costs charged to Federal awards by documenting the reasonableness of compensation for services rendered by State employees, and that the position appointments under the job classification specification were made and maintained in accordance with State statute. While BHR relies on data collected from State agencies to implement procedures regarding the classification plan, BHR retains ultimate oversight responsibility. BHR is the only agency with the authority to modify the classification plan. According to 5 MRSA 7061, BHR must provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 19 job classification specifications for compliance with 5 MRSA 7061. BHR could not provide documentation for 14 of the 19 job classification specifications tested to support that they were updated within five years as required by 5 MRSA 7061. Additionally, BHR’s current tracking mechanism does not effectively identify the dates of the last review and next scheduled review, thus hindering compliance with the statutory five-year cycle. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: • During fiscal year 2024, approximately $139 million in payroll expenditures were charged to Federal grants. This represents approximately ten percent of fiscal year 2024 Statewide payroll expenditures, which totaled $1.3 billion. • BHR was responsible for managing approximately 1,200 job classification specifications in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: State employee job classification and compensation may not accurately reflect the current duties and responsibilities of each position. Without documented evidence that review activities are occurring, BHR cannot ensure that the decisions involving the classification and compensation plan of all State employee positions are properly supported by documentation that accurately reflects the current duties and responsibilities of each position. As a result, this may lead to noncompliance with Federal and State regulations.   Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • enhance oversight regarding the maintenance of the State classification and compensation plan in accordance with State statute; • implement policies and procedures to ensure updates or reviews of the State classification and compensation plan at the job classification specification level are adequately documented; and • implement a tracking mechanism to accurately monitor the dates of past reviews and schedule forthcoming reviews to aid in adherence to the statutory requirement. Corrective Action Plan: See F-19 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The procedure referenced in 5 M.R.S. Sec. 7061(4) is laid out in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. The Department complies with these written policies and procedures as required by federal and state law. Section 7061(4) was last updated in 2023, with an effective date in October 2023. Pursuant to the JSC on Appropriations, Section 7061(4)(A) requires a review every five years of the state compensation plan for each class or position in the classified service. The FJA process is not related to the compensation plan, however, it is administered under a separate internal control structure that is in place and operating effectively and ensures that the compensation for individual employees is reasonable for the services rendered. The requirement for review of each classification through the FJA process is covered under Section 7061(4)(C) and is required to be reviewed every 10 years. It is also important to note that the Department has conferred with the OAG, who determined that Section 7061(4)(C) is not retroactive, meaning the Department has another 8.5 years to complete a review of all classifications. Additionally, salary studies conducted on State employee wages have shown that the salary and wages of job classifications paid by the State are consistently lower than industry averages, removing the risk that the utilization of these salary schedules as a component of payroll costs will cause overcharges to Federal grants. Contact: Michael J. Dunn, Acting State Human Resources Officer, Bureau of Human Resources, DAFS, 207-287-4651 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: OSA acknowledges BHR’s reference to 5 MRSA 7061(4), as amended in October 2023, and the procedures for the classification maintenance outlined in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. We also recognize the distinction BHR draws between the five-year statutory requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) for updating job descriptions and compensation plan components, and the ten-year classification plan review introduced under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). OSA’s review focused on BHR’s compliance with the five-year update requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A). While the statute was amended in 2023, the requirement that job descriptions be updated at least every five years has been in place since 1987. The recent amendment did not create this requirement; it expanded BHR’s obligation by tying the update process to the compensation plan and introducing a separate ten-year comprehensive classification review under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). These changes reflect an intent to strengthen oversight and modernize the State’s personnel system, not to delay or diminish BHR’s statutory responsibilities. To distinguish between BHR’s statutory responsibilities under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) and 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C), subsection (4)(A) requires periodic updating of job descriptions and the compensation plan at least every five years; this ensures that individual job classification specifications remain current and accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of State positions. In contrast, subsection (4)(C), introduced in 2023, requires a broader, ten-year comprehensive review of the classification plan as a whole. The two requirements serve different purposes and operate on separate cycles. The five-year review of individual classifications under subsection (4)(A) remains an ongoing statutory obligation, regardless of the addition of subsection (4)(C). While BHR references its internal procedures under 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4 as evidence of compliance, those procedures do not incorporate or reflect the statutory five-year update requirement in subsection (4)(A) or the ten-year update in subsection (4)(C). Furthermore, BHR could not provide documentation to support that 14 of the 19 job classifications tested by OSA had been reviewed or updated within the required timeframe. BHR does not have a comprehensive system to track classification review dates across the classification plan, making it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the statute or proactively manage updates. Internal policy may guide operations, but compliance is ultimately measured against the statutory requirements that govern those operations. The issues identified in audit testing also have implications for the compensation system. Under 5 MRSA 7065, the State’s compensation plan is developed based on the classification plan, with salary grades assigned to specific job classes according to documented duties and responsibilities. The classification plan is the foundational structure upon which compensation decisions are made. If job descriptions are outdated, or not periodically reviewed as required, positions may be misaligned with inappropriate salary grades, which may lead to pay that does not accurately reflect the nature or complexity of the work, including Federally-funded positions. Without a properly maintained classification system, the State cannot ensure that compensation, whether paid with State or Federal funds, is supported by a valid and compliant classification system. Under 2 CFR 200.430(a)(2), compensation for personal services is allowable under Federal awards only when it follows “an appointment made in accordance with the recipient’s…laws, rules, or written policies.” This Federal regulation places the burden of compliance on the State’s adherence to its own legal framework. The Federal government allows flexibility, but that flexibility hinges on the condition that the State follows its own laws; it is the minimum threshold for allowability requirements over personnel costs. Compliance with this law is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation and direct reflection of the expectations placed on the State by the Legislature and the Federal government. BHR asserts that State employee compensation is consistently below market rates and therefore poses no risk of overcharging Federal programs. Even if BHR’s current assertion that State salaries are below market is accepted, Federal guidance provides that reasonableness in amount is only one factor in determining allowability. Compensation must also follow lawful appointment processes and reflect compliance with State personnel laws. A claim of underpayment is not a compensating control to prevent noncompliance with required classification updates. The following statutes only serve to emphasize the responsibility placed upon BHR and the State Human Resources Officer. Under 5 MRSA 7036, the State Human Resources Officer is explicitly responsible for adopting rules for both classification and compensation plans (7036(I) and (J)), enforcing the Civil Service Law (7036(21)), and conducting both short-term and long-term planning for the State’s personnel system (7036(10)). The Officer is also responsible for responding to reclassification requests (7036(5)) and working closely with agencies on their personnel needs (7036(7)). These statutory responsibilities further confirm that maintaining accurate, up-to-date classification specifications is not discretionary. Moreover, failure to fulfill these legal duties has implications that underscore the purpose of a centralized human resources function. These conditions present a risk to the accessibility to public service employment, including potential delayed hiring decisions and diminished ability to attract and retain a skilled workforce. When classification structures are outdated and statutory mandates are not followed, BHR cannot deliver on its mission. We acknowledge BHR’s consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and its efforts to clarify its interpretation of the law; however, the condition observed during the audit period reflects a neutralization of internal controls and subsequent risk of noncompliance with statutory requirements that directly affect both classification and the allowability of personnel costs under Federal awards. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-0111-01)

(2024-041) Title: Internal control over monitoring of employee classification and compensation needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Human Resources Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Fish and Wildlife Cluster Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Rehabilitation Services – Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 15.605, 15.611, 15.626; 17.225; 84.027, 84.173; 84.126; 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.430; 5 MRSA 7061 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that personal services are rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, total compensation is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity, and follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity’s laws and/or rules or written policies. 5 MRSA 7061 states that the (Bureau of Human Resources (BHR)) director shall record the duties and responsibilities of all positions in State service and establish classes for these positions. The procedure shall provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. Condition: BHR maintains the job classification specifications and related compensation plan of State employees. A specific salary specification and grade is assigned based on the duties and responsibilities referenced in the job classification specification; this represents reasonable compensation for the services rendered for all positions that inhabit a given job classification specification. The assigned salary grade provides a basis for the allowability of compensation costs charged to Federal awards by documenting the reasonableness of compensation for services rendered by State employees, and that the position appointments under the job classification specification were made and maintained in accordance with State statute. While BHR relies on data collected from State agencies to implement procedures regarding the classification plan, BHR retains ultimate oversight responsibility. BHR is the only agency with the authority to modify the classification plan. According to 5 MRSA 7061, BHR must provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 19 job classification specifications for compliance with 5 MRSA 7061. BHR could not provide documentation for 14 of the 19 job classification specifications tested to support that they were updated within five years as required by 5 MRSA 7061. Additionally, BHR’s current tracking mechanism does not effectively identify the dates of the last review and next scheduled review, thus hindering compliance with the statutory five-year cycle. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: • During fiscal year 2024, approximately $139 million in payroll expenditures were charged to Federal grants. This represents approximately ten percent of fiscal year 2024 Statewide payroll expenditures, which totaled $1.3 billion. • BHR was responsible for managing approximately 1,200 job classification specifications in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: State employee job classification and compensation may not accurately reflect the current duties and responsibilities of each position. Without documented evidence that review activities are occurring, BHR cannot ensure that the decisions involving the classification and compensation plan of all State employee positions are properly supported by documentation that accurately reflects the current duties and responsibilities of each position. As a result, this may lead to noncompliance with Federal and State regulations.   Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • enhance oversight regarding the maintenance of the State classification and compensation plan in accordance with State statute; • implement policies and procedures to ensure updates or reviews of the State classification and compensation plan at the job classification specification level are adequately documented; and • implement a tracking mechanism to accurately monitor the dates of past reviews and schedule forthcoming reviews to aid in adherence to the statutory requirement. Corrective Action Plan: See F-19 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The procedure referenced in 5 M.R.S. Sec. 7061(4) is laid out in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. The Department complies with these written policies and procedures as required by federal and state law. Section 7061(4) was last updated in 2023, with an effective date in October 2023. Pursuant to the JSC on Appropriations, Section 7061(4)(A) requires a review every five years of the state compensation plan for each class or position in the classified service. The FJA process is not related to the compensation plan, however, it is administered under a separate internal control structure that is in place and operating effectively and ensures that the compensation for individual employees is reasonable for the services rendered. The requirement for review of each classification through the FJA process is covered under Section 7061(4)(C) and is required to be reviewed every 10 years. It is also important to note that the Department has conferred with the OAG, who determined that Section 7061(4)(C) is not retroactive, meaning the Department has another 8.5 years to complete a review of all classifications. Additionally, salary studies conducted on State employee wages have shown that the salary and wages of job classifications paid by the State are consistently lower than industry averages, removing the risk that the utilization of these salary schedules as a component of payroll costs will cause overcharges to Federal grants. Contact: Michael J. Dunn, Acting State Human Resources Officer, Bureau of Human Resources, DAFS, 207-287-4651 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: OSA acknowledges BHR’s reference to 5 MRSA 7061(4), as amended in October 2023, and the procedures for the classification maintenance outlined in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. We also recognize the distinction BHR draws between the five-year statutory requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) for updating job descriptions and compensation plan components, and the ten-year classification plan review introduced under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). OSA’s review focused on BHR’s compliance with the five-year update requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A). While the statute was amended in 2023, the requirement that job descriptions be updated at least every five years has been in place since 1987. The recent amendment did not create this requirement; it expanded BHR’s obligation by tying the update process to the compensation plan and introducing a separate ten-year comprehensive classification review under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). These changes reflect an intent to strengthen oversight and modernize the State’s personnel system, not to delay or diminish BHR’s statutory responsibilities. To distinguish between BHR’s statutory responsibilities under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) and 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C), subsection (4)(A) requires periodic updating of job descriptions and the compensation plan at least every five years; this ensures that individual job classification specifications remain current and accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of State positions. In contrast, subsection (4)(C), introduced in 2023, requires a broader, ten-year comprehensive review of the classification plan as a whole. The two requirements serve different purposes and operate on separate cycles. The five-year review of individual classifications under subsection (4)(A) remains an ongoing statutory obligation, regardless of the addition of subsection (4)(C). While BHR references its internal procedures under 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4 as evidence of compliance, those procedures do not incorporate or reflect the statutory five-year update requirement in subsection (4)(A) or the ten-year update in subsection (4)(C). Furthermore, BHR could not provide documentation to support that 14 of the 19 job classifications tested by OSA had been reviewed or updated within the required timeframe. BHR does not have a comprehensive system to track classification review dates across the classification plan, making it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the statute or proactively manage updates. Internal policy may guide operations, but compliance is ultimately measured against the statutory requirements that govern those operations. The issues identified in audit testing also have implications for the compensation system. Under 5 MRSA 7065, the State’s compensation plan is developed based on the classification plan, with salary grades assigned to specific job classes according to documented duties and responsibilities. The classification plan is the foundational structure upon which compensation decisions are made. If job descriptions are outdated, or not periodically reviewed as required, positions may be misaligned with inappropriate salary grades, which may lead to pay that does not accurately reflect the nature or complexity of the work, including Federally-funded positions. Without a properly maintained classification system, the State cannot ensure that compensation, whether paid with State or Federal funds, is supported by a valid and compliant classification system. Under 2 CFR 200.430(a)(2), compensation for personal services is allowable under Federal awards only when it follows “an appointment made in accordance with the recipient’s…laws, rules, or written policies.” This Federal regulation places the burden of compliance on the State’s adherence to its own legal framework. The Federal government allows flexibility, but that flexibility hinges on the condition that the State follows its own laws; it is the minimum threshold for allowability requirements over personnel costs. Compliance with this law is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation and direct reflection of the expectations placed on the State by the Legislature and the Federal government. BHR asserts that State employee compensation is consistently below market rates and therefore poses no risk of overcharging Federal programs. Even if BHR’s current assertion that State salaries are below market is accepted, Federal guidance provides that reasonableness in amount is only one factor in determining allowability. Compensation must also follow lawful appointment processes and reflect compliance with State personnel laws. A claim of underpayment is not a compensating control to prevent noncompliance with required classification updates. The following statutes only serve to emphasize the responsibility placed upon BHR and the State Human Resources Officer. Under 5 MRSA 7036, the State Human Resources Officer is explicitly responsible for adopting rules for both classification and compensation plans (7036(I) and (J)), enforcing the Civil Service Law (7036(21)), and conducting both short-term and long-term planning for the State’s personnel system (7036(10)). The Officer is also responsible for responding to reclassification requests (7036(5)) and working closely with agencies on their personnel needs (7036(7)). These statutory responsibilities further confirm that maintaining accurate, up-to-date classification specifications is not discretionary. Moreover, failure to fulfill these legal duties has implications that underscore the purpose of a centralized human resources function. These conditions present a risk to the accessibility to public service employment, including potential delayed hiring decisions and diminished ability to attract and retain a skilled workforce. When classification structures are outdated and statutory mandates are not followed, BHR cannot deliver on its mission. We acknowledge BHR’s consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and its efforts to clarify its interpretation of the law; however, the condition observed during the audit period reflects a neutralization of internal controls and subsequent risk of noncompliance with statutory requirements that directly affect both classification and the allowability of personnel costs under Federal awards. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-0111-01)

(2024-041) Title: Internal control over monitoring of employee classification and compensation needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Human Resources Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Fish and Wildlife Cluster Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Rehabilitation Services – Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 15.605, 15.611, 15.626; 17.225; 84.027, 84.173; 84.126; 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.430; 5 MRSA 7061 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that personal services are rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, total compensation is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity, and follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity’s laws and/or rules or written policies. 5 MRSA 7061 states that the (Bureau of Human Resources (BHR)) director shall record the duties and responsibilities of all positions in State service and establish classes for these positions. The procedure shall provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. Condition: BHR maintains the job classification specifications and related compensation plan of State employees. A specific salary specification and grade is assigned based on the duties and responsibilities referenced in the job classification specification; this represents reasonable compensation for the services rendered for all positions that inhabit a given job classification specification. The assigned salary grade provides a basis for the allowability of compensation costs charged to Federal awards by documenting the reasonableness of compensation for services rendered by State employees, and that the position appointments under the job classification specification were made and maintained in accordance with State statute. While BHR relies on data collected from State agencies to implement procedures regarding the classification plan, BHR retains ultimate oversight responsibility. BHR is the only agency with the authority to modify the classification plan. According to 5 MRSA 7061, BHR must provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 19 job classification specifications for compliance with 5 MRSA 7061. BHR could not provide documentation for 14 of the 19 job classification specifications tested to support that they were updated within five years as required by 5 MRSA 7061. Additionally, BHR’s current tracking mechanism does not effectively identify the dates of the last review and next scheduled review, thus hindering compliance with the statutory five-year cycle. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: • During fiscal year 2024, approximately $139 million in payroll expenditures were charged to Federal grants. This represents approximately ten percent of fiscal year 2024 Statewide payroll expenditures, which totaled $1.3 billion. • BHR was responsible for managing approximately 1,200 job classification specifications in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: State employee job classification and compensation may not accurately reflect the current duties and responsibilities of each position. Without documented evidence that review activities are occurring, BHR cannot ensure that the decisions involving the classification and compensation plan of all State employee positions are properly supported by documentation that accurately reflects the current duties and responsibilities of each position. As a result, this may lead to noncompliance with Federal and State regulations.   Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • enhance oversight regarding the maintenance of the State classification and compensation plan in accordance with State statute; • implement policies and procedures to ensure updates or reviews of the State classification and compensation plan at the job classification specification level are adequately documented; and • implement a tracking mechanism to accurately monitor the dates of past reviews and schedule forthcoming reviews to aid in adherence to the statutory requirement. Corrective Action Plan: See F-19 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The procedure referenced in 5 M.R.S. Sec. 7061(4) is laid out in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. The Department complies with these written policies and procedures as required by federal and state law. Section 7061(4) was last updated in 2023, with an effective date in October 2023. Pursuant to the JSC on Appropriations, Section 7061(4)(A) requires a review every five years of the state compensation plan for each class or position in the classified service. The FJA process is not related to the compensation plan, however, it is administered under a separate internal control structure that is in place and operating effectively and ensures that the compensation for individual employees is reasonable for the services rendered. The requirement for review of each classification through the FJA process is covered under Section 7061(4)(C) and is required to be reviewed every 10 years. It is also important to note that the Department has conferred with the OAG, who determined that Section 7061(4)(C) is not retroactive, meaning the Department has another 8.5 years to complete a review of all classifications. Additionally, salary studies conducted on State employee wages have shown that the salary and wages of job classifications paid by the State are consistently lower than industry averages, removing the risk that the utilization of these salary schedules as a component of payroll costs will cause overcharges to Federal grants. Contact: Michael J. Dunn, Acting State Human Resources Officer, Bureau of Human Resources, DAFS, 207-287-4651 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: OSA acknowledges BHR’s reference to 5 MRSA 7061(4), as amended in October 2023, and the procedures for the classification maintenance outlined in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. We also recognize the distinction BHR draws between the five-year statutory requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) for updating job descriptions and compensation plan components, and the ten-year classification plan review introduced under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). OSA’s review focused on BHR’s compliance with the five-year update requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A). While the statute was amended in 2023, the requirement that job descriptions be updated at least every five years has been in place since 1987. The recent amendment did not create this requirement; it expanded BHR’s obligation by tying the update process to the compensation plan and introducing a separate ten-year comprehensive classification review under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). These changes reflect an intent to strengthen oversight and modernize the State’s personnel system, not to delay or diminish BHR’s statutory responsibilities. To distinguish between BHR’s statutory responsibilities under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) and 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C), subsection (4)(A) requires periodic updating of job descriptions and the compensation plan at least every five years; this ensures that individual job classification specifications remain current and accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of State positions. In contrast, subsection (4)(C), introduced in 2023, requires a broader, ten-year comprehensive review of the classification plan as a whole. The two requirements serve different purposes and operate on separate cycles. The five-year review of individual classifications under subsection (4)(A) remains an ongoing statutory obligation, regardless of the addition of subsection (4)(C). While BHR references its internal procedures under 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4 as evidence of compliance, those procedures do not incorporate or reflect the statutory five-year update requirement in subsection (4)(A) or the ten-year update in subsection (4)(C). Furthermore, BHR could not provide documentation to support that 14 of the 19 job classifications tested by OSA had been reviewed or updated within the required timeframe. BHR does not have a comprehensive system to track classification review dates across the classification plan, making it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the statute or proactively manage updates. Internal policy may guide operations, but compliance is ultimately measured against the statutory requirements that govern those operations. The issues identified in audit testing also have implications for the compensation system. Under 5 MRSA 7065, the State’s compensation plan is developed based on the classification plan, with salary grades assigned to specific job classes according to documented duties and responsibilities. The classification plan is the foundational structure upon which compensation decisions are made. If job descriptions are outdated, or not periodically reviewed as required, positions may be misaligned with inappropriate salary grades, which may lead to pay that does not accurately reflect the nature or complexity of the work, including Federally-funded positions. Without a properly maintained classification system, the State cannot ensure that compensation, whether paid with State or Federal funds, is supported by a valid and compliant classification system. Under 2 CFR 200.430(a)(2), compensation for personal services is allowable under Federal awards only when it follows “an appointment made in accordance with the recipient’s…laws, rules, or written policies.” This Federal regulation places the burden of compliance on the State’s adherence to its own legal framework. The Federal government allows flexibility, but that flexibility hinges on the condition that the State follows its own laws; it is the minimum threshold for allowability requirements over personnel costs. Compliance with this law is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation and direct reflection of the expectations placed on the State by the Legislature and the Federal government. BHR asserts that State employee compensation is consistently below market rates and therefore poses no risk of overcharging Federal programs. Even if BHR’s current assertion that State salaries are below market is accepted, Federal guidance provides that reasonableness in amount is only one factor in determining allowability. Compensation must also follow lawful appointment processes and reflect compliance with State personnel laws. A claim of underpayment is not a compensating control to prevent noncompliance with required classification updates. The following statutes only serve to emphasize the responsibility placed upon BHR and the State Human Resources Officer. Under 5 MRSA 7036, the State Human Resources Officer is explicitly responsible for adopting rules for both classification and compensation plans (7036(I) and (J)), enforcing the Civil Service Law (7036(21)), and conducting both short-term and long-term planning for the State’s personnel system (7036(10)). The Officer is also responsible for responding to reclassification requests (7036(5)) and working closely with agencies on their personnel needs (7036(7)). These statutory responsibilities further confirm that maintaining accurate, up-to-date classification specifications is not discretionary. Moreover, failure to fulfill these legal duties has implications that underscore the purpose of a centralized human resources function. These conditions present a risk to the accessibility to public service employment, including potential delayed hiring decisions and diminished ability to attract and retain a skilled workforce. When classification structures are outdated and statutory mandates are not followed, BHR cannot deliver on its mission. We acknowledge BHR’s consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and its efforts to clarify its interpretation of the law; however, the condition observed during the audit period reflects a neutralization of internal controls and subsequent risk of noncompliance with statutory requirements that directly affect both classification and the allowability of personnel costs under Federal awards. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-0111-01)

(2024-041) Title: Internal control over monitoring of employee classification and compensation needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Human Resources Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Fish and Wildlife Cluster Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Rehabilitation Services – Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 15.605, 15.611, 15.626; 17.225; 84.027, 84.173; 84.126; 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.430; 5 MRSA 7061 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that personal services are rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, total compensation is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity, and follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity’s laws and/or rules or written policies. 5 MRSA 7061 states that the (Bureau of Human Resources (BHR)) director shall record the duties and responsibilities of all positions in State service and establish classes for these positions. The procedure shall provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. Condition: BHR maintains the job classification specifications and related compensation plan of State employees. A specific salary specification and grade is assigned based on the duties and responsibilities referenced in the job classification specification; this represents reasonable compensation for the services rendered for all positions that inhabit a given job classification specification. The assigned salary grade provides a basis for the allowability of compensation costs charged to Federal awards by documenting the reasonableness of compensation for services rendered by State employees, and that the position appointments under the job classification specification were made and maintained in accordance with State statute. While BHR relies on data collected from State agencies to implement procedures regarding the classification plan, BHR retains ultimate oversight responsibility. BHR is the only agency with the authority to modify the classification plan. According to 5 MRSA 7061, BHR must provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 19 job classification specifications for compliance with 5 MRSA 7061. BHR could not provide documentation for 14 of the 19 job classification specifications tested to support that they were updated within five years as required by 5 MRSA 7061. Additionally, BHR’s current tracking mechanism does not effectively identify the dates of the last review and next scheduled review, thus hindering compliance with the statutory five-year cycle. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: • During fiscal year 2024, approximately $139 million in payroll expenditures were charged to Federal grants. This represents approximately ten percent of fiscal year 2024 Statewide payroll expenditures, which totaled $1.3 billion. • BHR was responsible for managing approximately 1,200 job classification specifications in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: State employee job classification and compensation may not accurately reflect the current duties and responsibilities of each position. Without documented evidence that review activities are occurring, BHR cannot ensure that the decisions involving the classification and compensation plan of all State employee positions are properly supported by documentation that accurately reflects the current duties and responsibilities of each position. As a result, this may lead to noncompliance with Federal and State regulations.   Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • enhance oversight regarding the maintenance of the State classification and compensation plan in accordance with State statute; • implement policies and procedures to ensure updates or reviews of the State classification and compensation plan at the job classification specification level are adequately documented; and • implement a tracking mechanism to accurately monitor the dates of past reviews and schedule forthcoming reviews to aid in adherence to the statutory requirement. Corrective Action Plan: See F-19 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The procedure referenced in 5 M.R.S. Sec. 7061(4) is laid out in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. The Department complies with these written policies and procedures as required by federal and state law. Section 7061(4) was last updated in 2023, with an effective date in October 2023. Pursuant to the JSC on Appropriations, Section 7061(4)(A) requires a review every five years of the state compensation plan for each class or position in the classified service. The FJA process is not related to the compensation plan, however, it is administered under a separate internal control structure that is in place and operating effectively and ensures that the compensation for individual employees is reasonable for the services rendered. The requirement for review of each classification through the FJA process is covered under Section 7061(4)(C) and is required to be reviewed every 10 years. It is also important to note that the Department has conferred with the OAG, who determined that Section 7061(4)(C) is not retroactive, meaning the Department has another 8.5 years to complete a review of all classifications. Additionally, salary studies conducted on State employee wages have shown that the salary and wages of job classifications paid by the State are consistently lower than industry averages, removing the risk that the utilization of these salary schedules as a component of payroll costs will cause overcharges to Federal grants. Contact: Michael J. Dunn, Acting State Human Resources Officer, Bureau of Human Resources, DAFS, 207-287-4651 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: OSA acknowledges BHR’s reference to 5 MRSA 7061(4), as amended in October 2023, and the procedures for the classification maintenance outlined in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. We also recognize the distinction BHR draws between the five-year statutory requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) for updating job descriptions and compensation plan components, and the ten-year classification plan review introduced under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). OSA’s review focused on BHR’s compliance with the five-year update requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A). While the statute was amended in 2023, the requirement that job descriptions be updated at least every five years has been in place since 1987. The recent amendment did not create this requirement; it expanded BHR’s obligation by tying the update process to the compensation plan and introducing a separate ten-year comprehensive classification review under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). These changes reflect an intent to strengthen oversight and modernize the State’s personnel system, not to delay or diminish BHR’s statutory responsibilities. To distinguish between BHR’s statutory responsibilities under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) and 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C), subsection (4)(A) requires periodic updating of job descriptions and the compensation plan at least every five years; this ensures that individual job classification specifications remain current and accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of State positions. In contrast, subsection (4)(C), introduced in 2023, requires a broader, ten-year comprehensive review of the classification plan as a whole. The two requirements serve different purposes and operate on separate cycles. The five-year review of individual classifications under subsection (4)(A) remains an ongoing statutory obligation, regardless of the addition of subsection (4)(C). While BHR references its internal procedures under 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4 as evidence of compliance, those procedures do not incorporate or reflect the statutory five-year update requirement in subsection (4)(A) or the ten-year update in subsection (4)(C). Furthermore, BHR could not provide documentation to support that 14 of the 19 job classifications tested by OSA had been reviewed or updated within the required timeframe. BHR does not have a comprehensive system to track classification review dates across the classification plan, making it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the statute or proactively manage updates. Internal policy may guide operations, but compliance is ultimately measured against the statutory requirements that govern those operations. The issues identified in audit testing also have implications for the compensation system. Under 5 MRSA 7065, the State’s compensation plan is developed based on the classification plan, with salary grades assigned to specific job classes according to documented duties and responsibilities. The classification plan is the foundational structure upon which compensation decisions are made. If job descriptions are outdated, or not periodically reviewed as required, positions may be misaligned with inappropriate salary grades, which may lead to pay that does not accurately reflect the nature or complexity of the work, including Federally-funded positions. Without a properly maintained classification system, the State cannot ensure that compensation, whether paid with State or Federal funds, is supported by a valid and compliant classification system. Under 2 CFR 200.430(a)(2), compensation for personal services is allowable under Federal awards only when it follows “an appointment made in accordance with the recipient’s…laws, rules, or written policies.” This Federal regulation places the burden of compliance on the State’s adherence to its own legal framework. The Federal government allows flexibility, but that flexibility hinges on the condition that the State follows its own laws; it is the minimum threshold for allowability requirements over personnel costs. Compliance with this law is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation and direct reflection of the expectations placed on the State by the Legislature and the Federal government. BHR asserts that State employee compensation is consistently below market rates and therefore poses no risk of overcharging Federal programs. Even if BHR’s current assertion that State salaries are below market is accepted, Federal guidance provides that reasonableness in amount is only one factor in determining allowability. Compensation must also follow lawful appointment processes and reflect compliance with State personnel laws. A claim of underpayment is not a compensating control to prevent noncompliance with required classification updates. The following statutes only serve to emphasize the responsibility placed upon BHR and the State Human Resources Officer. Under 5 MRSA 7036, the State Human Resources Officer is explicitly responsible for adopting rules for both classification and compensation plans (7036(I) and (J)), enforcing the Civil Service Law (7036(21)), and conducting both short-term and long-term planning for the State’s personnel system (7036(10)). The Officer is also responsible for responding to reclassification requests (7036(5)) and working closely with agencies on their personnel needs (7036(7)). These statutory responsibilities further confirm that maintaining accurate, up-to-date classification specifications is not discretionary. Moreover, failure to fulfill these legal duties has implications that underscore the purpose of a centralized human resources function. These conditions present a risk to the accessibility to public service employment, including potential delayed hiring decisions and diminished ability to attract and retain a skilled workforce. When classification structures are outdated and statutory mandates are not followed, BHR cannot deliver on its mission. We acknowledge BHR’s consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and its efforts to clarify its interpretation of the law; however, the condition observed during the audit period reflects a neutralization of internal controls and subsequent risk of noncompliance with statutory requirements that directly affect both classification and the allowability of personnel costs under Federal awards. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-0111-01)

(2024-041) Title: Internal control over monitoring of employee classification and compensation needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Human Resources Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Fish and Wildlife Cluster Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Rehabilitation Services – Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 15.605, 15.611, 15.626; 17.225; 84.027, 84.173; 84.126; 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.430; 5 MRSA 7061 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that personal services are rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, total compensation is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity, and follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity’s laws and/or rules or written policies. 5 MRSA 7061 states that the (Bureau of Human Resources (BHR)) director shall record the duties and responsibilities of all positions in State service and establish classes for these positions. The procedure shall provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. Condition: BHR maintains the job classification specifications and related compensation plan of State employees. A specific salary specification and grade is assigned based on the duties and responsibilities referenced in the job classification specification; this represents reasonable compensation for the services rendered for all positions that inhabit a given job classification specification. The assigned salary grade provides a basis for the allowability of compensation costs charged to Federal awards by documenting the reasonableness of compensation for services rendered by State employees, and that the position appointments under the job classification specification were made and maintained in accordance with State statute. While BHR relies on data collected from State agencies to implement procedures regarding the classification plan, BHR retains ultimate oversight responsibility. BHR is the only agency with the authority to modify the classification plan. According to 5 MRSA 7061, BHR must provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 19 job classification specifications for compliance with 5 MRSA 7061. BHR could not provide documentation for 14 of the 19 job classification specifications tested to support that they were updated within five years as required by 5 MRSA 7061. Additionally, BHR’s current tracking mechanism does not effectively identify the dates of the last review and next scheduled review, thus hindering compliance with the statutory five-year cycle. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: • During fiscal year 2024, approximately $139 million in payroll expenditures were charged to Federal grants. This represents approximately ten percent of fiscal year 2024 Statewide payroll expenditures, which totaled $1.3 billion. • BHR was responsible for managing approximately 1,200 job classification specifications in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: State employee job classification and compensation may not accurately reflect the current duties and responsibilities of each position. Without documented evidence that review activities are occurring, BHR cannot ensure that the decisions involving the classification and compensation plan of all State employee positions are properly supported by documentation that accurately reflects the current duties and responsibilities of each position. As a result, this may lead to noncompliance with Federal and State regulations.   Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • enhance oversight regarding the maintenance of the State classification and compensation plan in accordance with State statute; • implement policies and procedures to ensure updates or reviews of the State classification and compensation plan at the job classification specification level are adequately documented; and • implement a tracking mechanism to accurately monitor the dates of past reviews and schedule forthcoming reviews to aid in adherence to the statutory requirement. Corrective Action Plan: See F-19 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The procedure referenced in 5 M.R.S. Sec. 7061(4) is laid out in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. The Department complies with these written policies and procedures as required by federal and state law. Section 7061(4) was last updated in 2023, with an effective date in October 2023. Pursuant to the JSC on Appropriations, Section 7061(4)(A) requires a review every five years of the state compensation plan for each class or position in the classified service. The FJA process is not related to the compensation plan, however, it is administered under a separate internal control structure that is in place and operating effectively and ensures that the compensation for individual employees is reasonable for the services rendered. The requirement for review of each classification through the FJA process is covered under Section 7061(4)(C) and is required to be reviewed every 10 years. It is also important to note that the Department has conferred with the OAG, who determined that Section 7061(4)(C) is not retroactive, meaning the Department has another 8.5 years to complete a review of all classifications. Additionally, salary studies conducted on State employee wages have shown that the salary and wages of job classifications paid by the State are consistently lower than industry averages, removing the risk that the utilization of these salary schedules as a component of payroll costs will cause overcharges to Federal grants. Contact: Michael J. Dunn, Acting State Human Resources Officer, Bureau of Human Resources, DAFS, 207-287-4651 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: OSA acknowledges BHR’s reference to 5 MRSA 7061(4), as amended in October 2023, and the procedures for the classification maintenance outlined in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. We also recognize the distinction BHR draws between the five-year statutory requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) for updating job descriptions and compensation plan components, and the ten-year classification plan review introduced under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). OSA’s review focused on BHR’s compliance with the five-year update requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A). While the statute was amended in 2023, the requirement that job descriptions be updated at least every five years has been in place since 1987. The recent amendment did not create this requirement; it expanded BHR’s obligation by tying the update process to the compensation plan and introducing a separate ten-year comprehensive classification review under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). These changes reflect an intent to strengthen oversight and modernize the State’s personnel system, not to delay or diminish BHR’s statutory responsibilities. To distinguish between BHR’s statutory responsibilities under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) and 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C), subsection (4)(A) requires periodic updating of job descriptions and the compensation plan at least every five years; this ensures that individual job classification specifications remain current and accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of State positions. In contrast, subsection (4)(C), introduced in 2023, requires a broader, ten-year comprehensive review of the classification plan as a whole. The two requirements serve different purposes and operate on separate cycles. The five-year review of individual classifications under subsection (4)(A) remains an ongoing statutory obligation, regardless of the addition of subsection (4)(C). While BHR references its internal procedures under 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4 as evidence of compliance, those procedures do not incorporate or reflect the statutory five-year update requirement in subsection (4)(A) or the ten-year update in subsection (4)(C). Furthermore, BHR could not provide documentation to support that 14 of the 19 job classifications tested by OSA had been reviewed or updated within the required timeframe. BHR does not have a comprehensive system to track classification review dates across the classification plan, making it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the statute or proactively manage updates. Internal policy may guide operations, but compliance is ultimately measured against the statutory requirements that govern those operations. The issues identified in audit testing also have implications for the compensation system. Under 5 MRSA 7065, the State’s compensation plan is developed based on the classification plan, with salary grades assigned to specific job classes according to documented duties and responsibilities. The classification plan is the foundational structure upon which compensation decisions are made. If job descriptions are outdated, or not periodically reviewed as required, positions may be misaligned with inappropriate salary grades, which may lead to pay that does not accurately reflect the nature or complexity of the work, including Federally-funded positions. Without a properly maintained classification system, the State cannot ensure that compensation, whether paid with State or Federal funds, is supported by a valid and compliant classification system. Under 2 CFR 200.430(a)(2), compensation for personal services is allowable under Federal awards only when it follows “an appointment made in accordance with the recipient’s…laws, rules, or written policies.” This Federal regulation places the burden of compliance on the State’s adherence to its own legal framework. The Federal government allows flexibility, but that flexibility hinges on the condition that the State follows its own laws; it is the minimum threshold for allowability requirements over personnel costs. Compliance with this law is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation and direct reflection of the expectations placed on the State by the Legislature and the Federal government. BHR asserts that State employee compensation is consistently below market rates and therefore poses no risk of overcharging Federal programs. Even if BHR’s current assertion that State salaries are below market is accepted, Federal guidance provides that reasonableness in amount is only one factor in determining allowability. Compensation must also follow lawful appointment processes and reflect compliance with State personnel laws. A claim of underpayment is not a compensating control to prevent noncompliance with required classification updates. The following statutes only serve to emphasize the responsibility placed upon BHR and the State Human Resources Officer. Under 5 MRSA 7036, the State Human Resources Officer is explicitly responsible for adopting rules for both classification and compensation plans (7036(I) and (J)), enforcing the Civil Service Law (7036(21)), and conducting both short-term and long-term planning for the State’s personnel system (7036(10)). The Officer is also responsible for responding to reclassification requests (7036(5)) and working closely with agencies on their personnel needs (7036(7)). These statutory responsibilities further confirm that maintaining accurate, up-to-date classification specifications is not discretionary. Moreover, failure to fulfill these legal duties has implications that underscore the purpose of a centralized human resources function. These conditions present a risk to the accessibility to public service employment, including potential delayed hiring decisions and diminished ability to attract and retain a skilled workforce. When classification structures are outdated and statutory mandates are not followed, BHR cannot deliver on its mission. We acknowledge BHR’s consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and its efforts to clarify its interpretation of the law; however, the condition observed during the audit period reflects a neutralization of internal controls and subsequent risk of noncompliance with statutory requirements that directly affect both classification and the allowability of personnel costs under Federal awards. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-0111-01)

(2024-042) Title: Internal control over HAF Program reporting and earmarking needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Professional and Financial Regulation State Bureau: Consumer Credit Protection Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Assistance Listing Title: Homeowner Assistance Fund Program (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 21.026 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Matching, level of effort, earmarking Reporting Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, Section 3206; 15 USC 9058d(c)(2) The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must submit quarterly reports providing financial and performance data regarding administration of the Homeowner Assistance Fund (HAF) Program that include financial data, targeting data, and other information. The Department is also required to submit an annual report to the U.S. Department of the Treasury regarding the impact of the HAF Program. The HAF Program’s earmarking requirements include: • counseling or educational efforts targeted to households eligible to be served related to foreclosure prevention or displacement, in an aggregate amount up to five percent of the funding received by the HAF participant. • planning, community engagement, needs assessment, and administrative expenses for qualified expenses, in an aggregate amount not to exceed 15 percent of the funding received by the HAF participant. If the HAF participant has only received the initial ten percent of its allocation, no more than 50 percent of the initial payment is permitted to be used for the expenses mentioned. • participants providing not less than 60 percent of funds to homeowners with income less than 100 percent Area Median Income (AMI) or 100 percent of U.S. median income. • participants should target homeowners that are classified as Socially Disadvantaged Individuals and 100 percent AMI or less. Condition: The Department contracts with a subrecipient to administer the HAF Program. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Department and the subrecipient outlines the following: • The subrecipient is responsible for preparation of all required reporting under the HAF Program. • The Department is responsible for certification and submission of all reports prepared by the subrecipient. During fiscal year 2024, four quarterly financial reports and one annual performance report for the HAF Program were required to be submitted to the Federal government. The MOU requires Department certification and submission of all HAF Program reports; however, the subrecipient prepared and certified all required reports during fiscal year 2024 with no oversight from the Department. In addition, the Department did not maintain records of any fiscal year 2024 HAF Program financial or performance reports or supporting documentation. The Department solicited the reports from the subrecipient only after the Office of the State Auditor’s (OSA) request for audit documentation. The Department subsequently provided OSA with all reports in response to the audit request; however, the Department could not provide documentation to support: • the Department’s review of each financial and performance report prepared by the subrecipient, as it did not occur prior to certification and submission by the subrecipient. • amounts reported on the State’s fiscal year 2024 HAF Program financial and performance reports. • amounts reported on key line items for HAF Program earmarking requirements and related obligation and expenditure totals. The Department has no assurance that HAF Program reports prepared by the subrecipient and submitted to the Federal government on behalf of the State are accurate or properly supported. In addition, the Department has no assurance that the HAF Program was in compliance with Federal requirements for earmarking, as supporting documentation for such compliance is part of the subrecipient’s reporting process. Furthermore, OSA was unable to verify the accuracy of submitted reports or compliance with earmarking requirements, as supporting documentation was not maintained. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the Department expended $29.4 million in HAF Program funds; the entire amount was passed through to the subrecipient. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate policies and procedures Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • HAF Program reports, including earmarking requirements, submitted to the Federal government are not properly supported and may not be accurate as documentation is not reviewed or maintained by the Department. • Incomplete or inaccurate HAF Program reports may result in incorrect information used by the Federal government for programmatic, policy, or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department establish and implement policies and procedures to require a documented review and approval of all HAF Program reports and related earmarking requirements prepared by the subrecipient, prior to certification and submission by the Department as required by the established MOU. This will ensure that information reported to the Federal government is accurate, complete, and properly supported, and that earmarking requirements have been met. Corrective Action Plan: See F-20 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Department will establish and implement additional policies and procedures for this program. The Department will require that the subrecipient submit the required program and financial reports to the department for review prior to submission to the federal agency starting with the reporting period ending March 2025 reporting period. Contact: Rachel Hendsbee, Director, Administrative Services Division, Department of Professional and Financial Regulation, 207-624-8500 (State Number: 24-1698-01)

(2024-043) Title: Internal control over HAF Program subrecipient monitoring needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Professional and Financial Regulation State Bureau: Consumer Credit Protection Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Assistance Listing Title: Homeowner Assistance Fund Program (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 21.026 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Subrecipient monitoring Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.332 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must: • evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring procedures. • verify that the subrecipient is audited as required when a subrecipient’s Federal award expenditures are expected to equal or exceed $750,000 during the fiscal year. • monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. Condition: The Homeowner Assistance Fund (HAF) Program provides funding to mitigate financial hardships associated with the pandemic, including preventing homeowner mortgage delinquencies, defaults, foreclosures, and loss of utilities or home energy services and displacements of homeowners experiencing financial hardships. In fiscal year 2024, the Department passed through HAF Program funds to one subrecipient responsible for administering the program. The Department contracted with a vendor to perform all subrecipient monitoring for the HAF Program; however, only one monitoring report for the first quarter of fiscal year 2024 had been received by the Department at the time of audit testing in February 2025. No subrecipient monitoring information was received by the Department during the actual use of the grant award in fiscal year 2024. As a result, the Department had no assurance in fiscal year 2024 that: • the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward was evaluated for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring procedures. • the subrecipient received a Single Audit as required. The Office of the State Auditor reviewed the quarterly monitoring report received from the vendor and noted that the subrecipient’s Single Audit requirement and related monitoring was not addressed. • the activities of the subrecipient were monitored as necessary to ensure that the subaward was used for authorized purposes and in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward, and that subaward performance goals were achieved. In addition to untimely vendor subrecipient monitoring reports, the Department’s review and approval of subrecipient reimbursement requests was not adequately designed, as submission of detailed expenditure information with the subrecipient’s requests for reimbursement of HAF Program funds was not required. A summary spreadsheet outlining actual and projected expenditures for the second-tier subrecipient was the only support provided to the Department with each reimbursement request, which does not provide adequate detail to ensure that the subaward was used for authorized purposes. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the Department expended $29.4 million in HAF Program funds; the entire amount was passed through to the subrecipient. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate policies and procedures Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Lack of ongoing or adequate subrecipient monitoring procedures could result in subrecipient noncompliance that would go undetected during the award term. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that: • all Federal award program subrecipients of the Department are subject to ongoing monitoring activities during the grant award term. • detailed documentation in support of subrecipient reimbursement requests is received prior to payment approval. Corrective Action Plan: See F-20 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Department has contracted with a vendor to perform subrecipient monitoring of the HAF program. The Department will ensure that subrecipient reports adequately detail expenditures. Contact: Rachel Hendsbee, Director, Administrative Services Division, Department of Professional and Financial Regulation, 207-624-8500 (State Number: 24-1698-02)

(2024-044) Title: Internal control over CSLFRF reporting needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Security and Employment Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Assistance Listing Title: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 21.027 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.332(b); 2 CFR 200.510 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must maintain accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with reporting requirements. The Department must prepare a Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for the period covered by the State’s financial statements which must include the total Federal awards expended. At a minimum, the SEFA must provide total Federal awards expended for each individual Federal program and the Assistance Listing Number (ALN) and include the total amount provided to subrecipients from each Federal program. Condition: The Department of Administrative and Financial Services’ Security and Employment Service Center (SESC) is responsible for accurately recording information needed to report on the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) Quarterly Project and Expenditure Reports. Information from these CSLFRF reports is used by the Office of the State Controller for SEFA preparation. The Office of the State Auditor reviewed amounts reported on the SEFA and identified $9.7 million of Federal expenditures incorrectly reported as amounts provided to subrecipients that should have been reported as direct expenditures. SESC inaccurately identified vendors as subrecipients. As a result, vendor payments were incorrectly classified as subrecipient payments on the CSLFRF Quarterly Project and Expenditure Reports and were incorrectly included in the initial amount reported on the SEFA as amounts provided to subrecipients. Context: Payments to the providers totaled $9.7 million of the $209.6 million in fiscal year 2024 CSLFRF expenditures. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Incomplete or inaccurate reporting of expenditures on the CSLFRF reports and SEFA, which are submitted to the Federal government, may result in incorrect information used for programmatic, policy or statistical purposes. • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement policies and procedures to ensure contractors and subrecipients are appropriately classified and reported on the CSLFRF Quarterly Project and Expenditure Reports and SEFA. Corrective Action Plan: See F-20 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Security and Employment Service will continue to work with our partner agencies to help ensure the sub-recipient/vendor classification is appropriately determined when the initial contracts are written. In this case, the contracts ended in July 2023 and the contracting agency did not amend the contracts to change the classification. Contact: Marilyn Leimbach, Director, SESC, DAFS, 207-248-2556 (State Number: 24-1699-03)

(2024-045) Title: Internal control over CSLFRF subrecipient risk evaluation procedures needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Labor State Bureau: Commissioner’s Office Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Assistance Listing Title: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 21.027 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Subrecipient monitoring Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.332 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department is required to evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in 2 CFR 200.332. Condition: As part of the American Rescue Plan Act, the State was advanced approximately $997 million in Federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) to support its response to and recovery from the COVID-19 public health emergency. The Maine Department of Labor (MDOL) partnered with subrecipients to support the administration of CSLFRF. MDOL has a documented policy that requires subrecipient risk evaluations. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 44 subrecipients paid by various State agencies under CSLFRF, including five MDOL subrecipients, to ensure that proper subrecipient monitoring was performed as required by Federal regulations. MDOL subrecipient monitoring procedures included providing Federal award information in grant award agreements, communicating program guidelines, establishing reporting requirements, providing technical assistance, and communicating with the subrecipients to discuss program performance; however, MDOL could not provide evidence to demonstrate that monitoring procedures were established in response to an evaluation of the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance for the five MDOL subrecipients tested. OSA selected a nonstatistical random sample. Context: During fiscal year 2024, the Department provided $5.8 million to 39 MDOL subrecipients, from a total of $137.9 million provided to all CSLFRF subrecipients. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate procedures Effect: Subrecipients that are deemed higher risk may not be monitored on a more frequent basis. Conversely, subrecipients that are deemed lower risk may not be monitored on a less frequent basis, which would free resources and time to dedicate towards other higher risk subrecipients. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance oversight over policies and procedures that require evaluation of each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance specifically for the purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring to be performed. This will ensure subrecipients are monitored appropriately based on risk designation. Corrective Action Plan: See F-20 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. MDOL received funds via the Maine Jobs and Recovery Plan to accomplish several goals across 20 unique initiatives. To best meet the goals of several initiatives, MDOL selected various partners to work with - via a competitive Request for Applications (RFA) process or other contractual arrangement. MDOL’s competitive RFA process required evaluating individual applicants’ previous experience in managing grants and delivering similar programs, which directly correlated with selection criteria and grantee scoring. After selection, grantees are required to submit quarterly performance reports and participate in grantee check-in calls at least twice per year. For grantees not on track to meet their performance goals, monthly calls were held with interim progress milestones set to track performance. While the above procedures were implemented for all subrecipients, going forward, the Department will document that monitoring procedures were established in response to an evaluation of the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance. Contact: Kimberley Moore, Director, Bureau of Employment Services, MDOL, 207-620-0183 (State Number: 24-1699-04)

(2024-046) Title: Internal control over CSLFRF subrecipient cash management needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Division of Contract Management Office of Aging and Disability Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Assistance Listing Title: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 21.027 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Cash management Subrecipient monitoring Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.305 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department is required to monitor cash drawdowns by their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the payment of Federal funds to the subrecipient and the subrecipient’s actual disbursement for program purposes is minimized. Condition: The Department’s Division of Contract Management (DCM) has three methods for providing payments to subrecipients: cost-settled, cost-settled by invoice, and fee-for-service subawards. • For cost-settled subawards, DCM procedures include making equal advance monthly payments and then reconciling those amounts to the quarterly financial reports submitted by the subrecipient. This procedure does not take into consideration the time elapsing between the payment of Federal funds to the subrecipient and the subrecipient’s actual disbursement for program purposes. • For “cost-settled by invoice” (reimbursement) subawards, DCM procedures do not require subrecipients to include supporting documentation with monthly requests for reimbursement nor do they request supporting documentation at a subsequent date. This procedure does not take into consideration the time elapsing between the payment of Federal funds to the subrecipient and the subrecipient’s actual disbursement for program purposes. • Cash management requirements are not applicable for fee-for-service subawards. The Office of Aging and Disability Services (OADS) is responsible for ensuring its subrecipients that received Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) comply with Federal requirements; however, OADS’ subrecipient monitoring procedures do not include review of subrecipient compliance with cash management requirements. All of the CSLFRF subawards from OADS are cost-settled. Therefore, DCM and OADS procedures do not support that subrecipient cash management is properly monitored as required by Federal regulations. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the Department provided $1.5 million to OADS subrecipients from CSLFRF grant funds totaling $209.6 million. Cause: • Lack of adequate subrecipient monitoring procedures • Lack of centralized oversight of subrecipient monitoring Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Federal programs may not be effectively and efficiently administered. • The Federal government may require the implementation of more stringent subrecipient cash management procedures. Recommendation: We recommend that OADS collaborate with DCM to implement monitoring procedures over subrecipient cash management requirements to ensure that the time elapsing between the payment of Federal funds to the subrecipient and the subrecipient’s actual disbursement for program purposes is minimized for the CSLFRF program. Corrective Action Plan: See F-20 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The Department is in compliance with the requirement for minimizing the time between payments to our subrecipients and the disbursement of funds. Payments are made as close as administratively feasible. The Compliance Supplement suggested audit procedures for Cash Management for pass-through entities refers to 200.305(b)(1)...that same paragraph states that the timing and amount of advance payments must be as close as is administratively feasible. Contact: Anthony Madden, Deputy Director, Division of Audit, DHHS, 207-287-2834 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department’s interpretation of the applicable Federal regulation selectively emphasizes a single sentence from the broader paragraph, omitting critical context that informs the regulation’s full intent. According to the 2024 Compliance Supplement, pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of Federal funds to the subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized as required by the applicable cash management requirements in the Federal award to the recipient (2 CFR section 200.305(b)(1)). 2 CFR section 200.305(b)(1) states that the recipient or subrecipient must be paid in advance, provided it maintains or demonstrates the willingness to maintain both written procedures that minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds and disbursement by the recipient or subrecipient, and financial management systems that meet the standards for fund control and accountability as established in this part. Advance payments to a recipient or subrecipient must be limited to the minimum amounts needed and be timed with actual, immediate cash requirements of the recipient or subrecipient in carrying out the purpose of the approved program or project. The timing and amount of advance payments must be as close as is administratively feasible to the actual disbursements by the recipient or subrecipient for direct program or project costs and the proportionate share of any allowable indirect costs. The recipient or subrecipient must make timely payments to contractors in accordance with the contract provisions. The Department references the phrase “as close as is administratively feasible” to justify their current process; however, this phrase is part of a broader requirement that establishes specific conditions for advance payments. The regulation requires that the timing between when the subrecipient receives Federal funds from the State and when the subrecipient disburses those funds is closely monitored to ensure that disbursements align with actual, immediate cash needs. A full reading of the provision indicates that “administratively feasible” does not negate the obligation to implement effective controls that minimize this gap, nor does it permit delays or inadequate oversight in Federal cash management. The Department could not provide evidence to demonstrate that they adequately monitored subrecipient cash drawdowns to ensure alignment with actual, immediate cash needs. Additionally, the Department does not require subrecipients to submit invoice documentation to substantiate the timing, amount, or nature of expenditures included in the request of Federal funds. As a result, the Department cannot demonstrate an adequate level of monitoring, as there is no evidence that they collect the necessary information to ensure compliance with Federal cash management requirements. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1699-05)

(2024-047) Title: Internal control over Special Education period of performance needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Education Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Special Services & Inclusive Education General Government Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Assistance Listing Title: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Period of performance Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 84.027 $7,303 Likely Questioned Costs: ALN 84.027 $31,768; likely questioned costs were projected by dividing the known questioned costs identified in the sample by total Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award expenditures tested to establish an error rate, then applying that error rate to total Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award expenditures paid in fiscal year 2024. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 34 CFR 76.703 and .709 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. The Department must obligate Federal award funds during the 27-month period of performance, extending from July 1 of the fiscal year for which the funds were appropriated through September 30 of the second following fiscal year. Condition: The Department of Education’s (DOE) Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education, in conjunction with the Department of Administrative and Financial Services’ General Government Service Center (GGSC), administers Federal funding received through the Special Education Cluster (SEC) program. The SEC program provides grants to states, and through them to Local Education Agencies (LEAs), to assist in providing special education and related services to eligible children. DOE and GGSC procedures include review and approval of requests for reimbursement from LEAs and other programmatic costs including payroll, administrative expenditures, and awards to subrecipients of State-level activities. This review includes a determination of whether the costs are obligated within the applicable Federal award’s period of performance through a comparison of billing dates and billing periods to grant award terms. Period of performance Federal regulations applicable to the SEC program in fiscal year 2024 relate to the Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award. The award’s obligation period ended September 30, 2023, and the liquidation period ended 120 calendar days following, on January 28, 2024. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 expenditure transactions that occurred during the Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award’s liquidation period to ensure that the expenditures were obligated and liquidated in accordance with Federal regulations. OSA identified five transactions totaling $7,303 where obligations occurred after September 30, 2023. Therefore, these transactions did not meet Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award’s period of performance requirements and are not allowable under the terms of the award. As a result, OSA identified questioned costs totaling $7,303. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the Department expended $68.2 million in SEC program funds. Of this total, $5.8 million of Federal fiscal year 2022 grant funds was expended during the award’s liquidation period which occurred during fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of adequate procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance procedures and increase oversight to ensure that obligation of grant funds is made within period of performance requirements established in the terms and conditions of Federal grant awards. Corrective Action Plan: See F-21 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education has developed and will implement a corrective action plan to address the issue identified. Contact: Barbara McGowen, Director of Financial Management, Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education, DOE, 207-624-6645 (State Number: 24-1201-01)

(2024-047) Title: Internal control over Special Education period of performance needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Education Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Special Services & Inclusive Education General Government Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Assistance Listing Title: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Period of performance Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 84.027 $7,303 Likely Questioned Costs: ALN 84.027 $31,768; likely questioned costs were projected by dividing the known questioned costs identified in the sample by total Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award expenditures tested to establish an error rate, then applying that error rate to total Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award expenditures paid in fiscal year 2024. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 34 CFR 76.703 and .709 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. The Department must obligate Federal award funds during the 27-month period of performance, extending from July 1 of the fiscal year for which the funds were appropriated through September 30 of the second following fiscal year. Condition: The Department of Education’s (DOE) Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education, in conjunction with the Department of Administrative and Financial Services’ General Government Service Center (GGSC), administers Federal funding received through the Special Education Cluster (SEC) program. The SEC program provides grants to states, and through them to Local Education Agencies (LEAs), to assist in providing special education and related services to eligible children. DOE and GGSC procedures include review and approval of requests for reimbursement from LEAs and other programmatic costs including payroll, administrative expenditures, and awards to subrecipients of State-level activities. This review includes a determination of whether the costs are obligated within the applicable Federal award’s period of performance through a comparison of billing dates and billing periods to grant award terms. Period of performance Federal regulations applicable to the SEC program in fiscal year 2024 relate to the Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award. The award’s obligation period ended September 30, 2023, and the liquidation period ended 120 calendar days following, on January 28, 2024. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 expenditure transactions that occurred during the Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award’s liquidation period to ensure that the expenditures were obligated and liquidated in accordance with Federal regulations. OSA identified five transactions totaling $7,303 where obligations occurred after September 30, 2023. Therefore, these transactions did not meet Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award’s period of performance requirements and are not allowable under the terms of the award. As a result, OSA identified questioned costs totaling $7,303. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the Department expended $68.2 million in SEC program funds. Of this total, $5.8 million of Federal fiscal year 2022 grant funds was expended during the award’s liquidation period which occurred during fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of adequate procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance procedures and increase oversight to ensure that obligation of grant funds is made within period of performance requirements established in the terms and conditions of Federal grant awards. Corrective Action Plan: See F-21 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education has developed and will implement a corrective action plan to address the issue identified. Contact: Barbara McGowen, Director of Financial Management, Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education, DOE, 207-624-6645 (State Number: 24-1201-01)

(2024-047) Title: Internal control over Special Education period of performance needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Education Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Special Services & Inclusive Education General Government Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Assistance Listing Title: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Period of performance Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 84.027 $7,303 Likely Questioned Costs: ALN 84.027 $31,768; likely questioned costs were projected by dividing the known questioned costs identified in the sample by total Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award expenditures tested to establish an error rate, then applying that error rate to total Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award expenditures paid in fiscal year 2024. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 34 CFR 76.703 and .709 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. The Department must obligate Federal award funds during the 27-month period of performance, extending from July 1 of the fiscal year for which the funds were appropriated through September 30 of the second following fiscal year. Condition: The Department of Education’s (DOE) Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education, in conjunction with the Department of Administrative and Financial Services’ General Government Service Center (GGSC), administers Federal funding received through the Special Education Cluster (SEC) program. The SEC program provides grants to states, and through them to Local Education Agencies (LEAs), to assist in providing special education and related services to eligible children. DOE and GGSC procedures include review and approval of requests for reimbursement from LEAs and other programmatic costs including payroll, administrative expenditures, and awards to subrecipients of State-level activities. This review includes a determination of whether the costs are obligated within the applicable Federal award’s period of performance through a comparison of billing dates and billing periods to grant award terms. Period of performance Federal regulations applicable to the SEC program in fiscal year 2024 relate to the Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award. The award’s obligation period ended September 30, 2023, and the liquidation period ended 120 calendar days following, on January 28, 2024. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 expenditure transactions that occurred during the Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award’s liquidation period to ensure that the expenditures were obligated and liquidated in accordance with Federal regulations. OSA identified five transactions totaling $7,303 where obligations occurred after September 30, 2023. Therefore, these transactions did not meet Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award’s period of performance requirements and are not allowable under the terms of the award. As a result, OSA identified questioned costs totaling $7,303. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the Department expended $68.2 million in SEC program funds. Of this total, $5.8 million of Federal fiscal year 2022 grant funds was expended during the award’s liquidation period which occurred during fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of adequate procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance procedures and increase oversight to ensure that obligation of grant funds is made within period of performance requirements established in the terms and conditions of Federal grant awards. Corrective Action Plan: See F-21 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education has developed and will implement a corrective action plan to address the issue identified. Contact: Barbara McGowen, Director of Financial Management, Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education, DOE, 207-624-6645 (State Number: 24-1201-01)

(2024-047) Title: Internal control over Special Education period of performance needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Education Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Special Services & Inclusive Education General Government Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Assistance Listing Title: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Period of performance Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 84.027 $7,303 Likely Questioned Costs: ALN 84.027 $31,768; likely questioned costs were projected by dividing the known questioned costs identified in the sample by total Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award expenditures tested to establish an error rate, then applying that error rate to total Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award expenditures paid in fiscal year 2024. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 34 CFR 76.703 and .709 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. The Department must obligate Federal award funds during the 27-month period of performance, extending from July 1 of the fiscal year for which the funds were appropriated through September 30 of the second following fiscal year. Condition: The Department of Education’s (DOE) Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education, in conjunction with the Department of Administrative and Financial Services’ General Government Service Center (GGSC), administers Federal funding received through the Special Education Cluster (SEC) program. The SEC program provides grants to states, and through them to Local Education Agencies (LEAs), to assist in providing special education and related services to eligible children. DOE and GGSC procedures include review and approval of requests for reimbursement from LEAs and other programmatic costs including payroll, administrative expenditures, and awards to subrecipients of State-level activities. This review includes a determination of whether the costs are obligated within the applicable Federal award’s period of performance through a comparison of billing dates and billing periods to grant award terms. Period of performance Federal regulations applicable to the SEC program in fiscal year 2024 relate to the Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award. The award’s obligation period ended September 30, 2023, and the liquidation period ended 120 calendar days following, on January 28, 2024. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 expenditure transactions that occurred during the Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award’s liquidation period to ensure that the expenditures were obligated and liquidated in accordance with Federal regulations. OSA identified five transactions totaling $7,303 where obligations occurred after September 30, 2023. Therefore, these transactions did not meet Federal fiscal year 2022 grant award’s period of performance requirements and are not allowable under the terms of the award. As a result, OSA identified questioned costs totaling $7,303. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the Department expended $68.2 million in SEC program funds. Of this total, $5.8 million of Federal fiscal year 2022 grant funds was expended during the award’s liquidation period which occurred during fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of adequate procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance procedures and increase oversight to ensure that obligation of grant funds is made within period of performance requirements established in the terms and conditions of Federal grant awards. Corrective Action Plan: See F-21 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education has developed and will implement a corrective action plan to address the issue identified. Contact: Barbara McGowen, Director of Financial Management, Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education, DOE, 207-624-6645 (State Number: 24-1201-01)

(2024-048) Title: Internal control over Special Education level of effort needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Education State Bureau: Commissioner’s Office Special Services & Inclusive Education Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Assistance Listing Title: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Matching, level of effort, earmarking Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 34 CFR 300.163 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. As part of the Special Education program’s level of effort, referred to as maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements, a State must not reduce the amount of State financial support for special education and related services for children with disabilities, or otherwise made available because of the excess costs of educating those children, below the amount of that support for the preceding fiscal year. This is referred to as the State’s Maintenance of State Financial Support (MSFS). Condition: The Department of Education’s (DOE) School Finance and Operations team within the Commissioner’s Office, in conjunction with DOE’s Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education, is responsible for gathering, preparing, and compiling the State’s MSFS data. The MSFS data includes State funds spent on Special Education as well as a calculation of per pupil State support for Special Education. This data, accumulated in a spreadsheet by DOE personnel, is included on DOE’s annual application under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). DOE’s application review procedures include the Commissioner certifying that the State has met the MSFS for grant funds made available for Special Education and related services for children with disabilities prior to submission to the Federal government. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested the fiscal year 2024 MSFS calculation and identified that outdated data was used in three formulas in the spreadsheet. While the State’s MSFS was calculated incorrectly, OSA was able to verify that the Department met MOE requirements for fiscal year 2024, which was the greater of: • $481,309,366 for total State financial support made available to Special Education and related services for children with disabilities; or • $13,470 for per capita amount of State financial support. Context: On the fiscal year 2024 IDEA Part B application, the Department reported $484,482,061 for the MSFS; however, $496,227,407 should have been reported. Cause: • Lack of adequate procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • The Department is required to maintain a certain level of State financial support. An inaccurate MSFS calculation could result in the Department not meeting MOE requirements. • Inaccurate information reported to the Federal government may be used for programmatic, policy or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance procedures to ensure that the MSFS data reported to the Federal government is accurate and complete prior to submission. Corrective Action Plan: See F-21 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education has developed and will implement a corrective action plan to address the issue identified. Contact: Barbara McGowen, Director of Financial Management, Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education, DOE, 207-624-6645 (State Number: 24-1201-02)

(2024-048) Title: Internal control over Special Education level of effort needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Education State Bureau: Commissioner’s Office Special Services & Inclusive Education Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Assistance Listing Title: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Matching, level of effort, earmarking Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 34 CFR 300.163 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. As part of the Special Education program’s level of effort, referred to as maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements, a State must not reduce the amount of State financial support for special education and related services for children with disabilities, or otherwise made available because of the excess costs of educating those children, below the amount of that support for the preceding fiscal year. This is referred to as the State’s Maintenance of State Financial Support (MSFS). Condition: The Department of Education’s (DOE) School Finance and Operations team within the Commissioner’s Office, in conjunction with DOE’s Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education, is responsible for gathering, preparing, and compiling the State’s MSFS data. The MSFS data includes State funds spent on Special Education as well as a calculation of per pupil State support for Special Education. This data, accumulated in a spreadsheet by DOE personnel, is included on DOE’s annual application under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). DOE’s application review procedures include the Commissioner certifying that the State has met the MSFS for grant funds made available for Special Education and related services for children with disabilities prior to submission to the Federal government. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested the fiscal year 2024 MSFS calculation and identified that outdated data was used in three formulas in the spreadsheet. While the State’s MSFS was calculated incorrectly, OSA was able to verify that the Department met MOE requirements for fiscal year 2024, which was the greater of: • $481,309,366 for total State financial support made available to Special Education and related services for children with disabilities; or • $13,470 for per capita amount of State financial support. Context: On the fiscal year 2024 IDEA Part B application, the Department reported $484,482,061 for the MSFS; however, $496,227,407 should have been reported. Cause: • Lack of adequate procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • The Department is required to maintain a certain level of State financial support. An inaccurate MSFS calculation could result in the Department not meeting MOE requirements. • Inaccurate information reported to the Federal government may be used for programmatic, policy or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance procedures to ensure that the MSFS data reported to the Federal government is accurate and complete prior to submission. Corrective Action Plan: See F-21 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education has developed and will implement a corrective action plan to address the issue identified. Contact: Barbara McGowen, Director of Financial Management, Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education, DOE, 207-624-6645 (State Number: 24-1201-02)

(2024-048) Title: Internal control over Special Education level of effort needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Education State Bureau: Commissioner’s Office Special Services & Inclusive Education Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Assistance Listing Title: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Matching, level of effort, earmarking Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 34 CFR 300.163 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. As part of the Special Education program’s level of effort, referred to as maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements, a State must not reduce the amount of State financial support for special education and related services for children with disabilities, or otherwise made available because of the excess costs of educating those children, below the amount of that support for the preceding fiscal year. This is referred to as the State’s Maintenance of State Financial Support (MSFS). Condition: The Department of Education’s (DOE) School Finance and Operations team within the Commissioner’s Office, in conjunction with DOE’s Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education, is responsible for gathering, preparing, and compiling the State’s MSFS data. The MSFS data includes State funds spent on Special Education as well as a calculation of per pupil State support for Special Education. This data, accumulated in a spreadsheet by DOE personnel, is included on DOE’s annual application under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). DOE’s application review procedures include the Commissioner certifying that the State has met the MSFS for grant funds made available for Special Education and related services for children with disabilities prior to submission to the Federal government. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested the fiscal year 2024 MSFS calculation and identified that outdated data was used in three formulas in the spreadsheet. While the State’s MSFS was calculated incorrectly, OSA was able to verify that the Department met MOE requirements for fiscal year 2024, which was the greater of: • $481,309,366 for total State financial support made available to Special Education and related services for children with disabilities; or • $13,470 for per capita amount of State financial support. Context: On the fiscal year 2024 IDEA Part B application, the Department reported $484,482,061 for the MSFS; however, $496,227,407 should have been reported. Cause: • Lack of adequate procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • The Department is required to maintain a certain level of State financial support. An inaccurate MSFS calculation could result in the Department not meeting MOE requirements. • Inaccurate information reported to the Federal government may be used for programmatic, policy or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance procedures to ensure that the MSFS data reported to the Federal government is accurate and complete prior to submission. Corrective Action Plan: See F-21 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. The Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education has developed and will implement a corrective action plan to address the issue identified. Contact: Barbara McGowen, Director of Financial Management, Office of Special Services & Inclusive Education, DOE, 207-624-6645 (State Number: 24-1201-02)