Corrective Action Plans

Finding Number 2023-053 Subject Heading (Financial) or AL no. and program name (Federal) TITLE I, PART A – GRANTS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES AL #84.010 Planned Corrective Action The Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE) will revise the risk assessment procedures to include a second review of data sourced for the risk assessment. Assigning a second reviewer will reduce the likelihood of errors and will confirm the risk assessment scoring is accurate. Anticipated Completion Date July-2025 Responsible Contact Person Tammy Smith

Finding Number 2023-050 Subject Heading (Financial) or AL no. and program name (Federal) AL #84.425 – EDUCATION STABILIZATION FUND (ESF - AL #84.425D; 84.425R; 84.425V) Planned Corrective Action OSDE does not agree with the finding. During monitoring reviews, OSDE’s policy for monitoring of Davis-Bacon was the following: 1) Review relevant RFP and competitive bidding documents, including terms and conditions 2) Copies of relevant contracts showing wage-requirements (Davis- Bacon). Written statements from contractors and accompanying documentation to demonstrate prevailing wages have been researched and subcontracts are compliant. 3) Local written policies or procedures that summarizes the LEA’s process for ensuring compliance with statutory and requirement requirements for paying prevailing wage. 4) During onsite monitoring OSDE will sample construction payroll wage reports and test individual contractor payroll for prevailing wage rates. Throughout the process of administering ESSER funding guidance and flowcharts were provided to LEAs to inform LEAs of the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements for construction projects and how to maintain compliance. OSDE’s monitoring of subrecipients includes reviewing individual payroll registers from contractors. Further, the results of monitoring procedures are reviewed and approved by The Office of Title Services (OTS) managers / supervisor. If OSDE becomes aware of non-compliance, then these matters are addressed with LEAs during corrective actions. OSDE believes the current monitoring procedures are sufficient to ensure LEAs are meeting the requirements of 34 CFR §§ 75.600-75.618. Finally, OSDE has not been provided with the details of the two non-compliant consolidated monitoring reviews identified by the State Auditor. OSDE believes the current monitoring procedures are appropriate. We’re not aware of instances of consolidating monitoring visits that are not compliant with OSDE’s current policies and procedures. Anticipated Completion Date N/A Responsible Contact Person Amber Polach

Finding Number 2023-046 Subject Heading (Financial) or AL no. and program name (Federal) AL #84.425 – EDUCATION STABILIZATION FUND (ESF - AL #84.425D; 84.425R; 84.425V) Planned Corrective Action OSDE does not agree with the finding regarding $802,414.82 of claims for a non-public school that used unallowable proportionality data in their ARP EANS application. The Office of Title Services (OTS) used the limited federal guidance available at the time to manage the Emergency Assistance to Nonpublic Schools (EANS) funds. Due to limited guidance from the US Department of Education (USDE), OSDE allocated ARP EANS funding consistent with CRRSA EANS. After funds were allocated, USDE provided guidance on the allocation of ARP EANS funding using actual low income poverty data. As a result, OSDE’s reviewed the allocation of ARP EANS funding and determine that certain expenditures totaling $802,414 were ineligible under ARP EANS but eligible under CRSA EANS. In the fall of 2024, the Office of Title Services (OTS) provided documentation and adjusting journal entries to reallocate ineligible funds from ARP EANS to unspent CRSA EANS. This adjustment transferred the unallowable expenditures originally charged to ARP EANS to unspent funds under CRRSA EANS. All funds were obligated during the applicable period of availability. The United States Department of Education accepted evidence of this corrective action in an email received by OTS staff on February 5, 2025. A copy of this email was sent to the Oklahoma State Auditor and Inspector’s Office on Monday, May 19th, 2025. As a result, these expenditures were allowable and did not result in questioned costs. OSDE agrees with that low-income data used for EANS allocation was different than the low-income data used for Title I allocations. OSDE used Low-income counts based upon data provided by nonpublic schools. The Office of Title Services (OTS) used the limited federal guidance available at the time to manage the Emergency Assistance to Nonpublic Schools (EANS) funds. OSDE is not aware of expenditures that lacked supporting documentation. OSDE agrees with the finding on a duplicate Payment. Duplicate payments were erroneously made to Complete Book and Media Supply LLC. OSDE is working to resolve this matter. EANS Proportionality In the fall of 2024, the Office of Title Services (OTS) provided documentation and adjusting journal entries to re-allocate ineligible funds from ARP EANS to unspent CRSA EANS. This adjustment transferred the unallowable expenditures originally charged to ARP EANS to unspent funds under CRRSA EANS. All funds were obligated during the applicable period of availability. The United States Department of Education accepted evidence of this corrective action in an email received by OTS staff on February 5, 2025. A copy of this email was sent to the Oklahoma State Auditor and Inspector’s Office on Monday, May 19th, 2025. As a result, these expenditures were allowable and did not result in questioned costs. EANS Low-Income If low-income data for nonpublic school participants is necessary to determine eligibility, then OTS will create a written procedure to collect and verify the data. EANS Procurement To avoid duplicate payments only the Senior Director of Federal Programs will have approval on any invoice submitted for payment. Invoices will be tracked and documented by the Office of Title Services. In the future should it be necessary to allocate to non-LEA entities, the Office of Title Services will create written procedures to ensure any necessary supporting documentation be submitted prior to approving payment on an invoice. Anticipated Completion Date Responsible Contact Person Tammy Smith

Finding Number 2023-045 Subject Heading (Financial) or AL no. and program name (Federal) AL #84.425 – EDUCATION STABILIZATION FUND (ESF - AL #84.425D; #84.425U) Planned Corrective Action The Office of Title Services (OTS) has reviewed the inventories in question that were submitted in the FY23 ESEA Grant Performance Review and agree there were several items above a $5000.00 unit cost that were not properly recorded on the inventories reviewed. The expectations for inventory compliance were not followed for two districts. The Office of Title Services (OTS) program director will continue to address the expectations of inventory compliance during the ESEA Grant Performance Review internal training process with the project managers to ensure accuracy during the review process. OTS has included an attachment of the current OTS training presentation that includes several slides of the inventory expectations. • For materials and supply items, the Office of Title Services (OTS) staff will review the district’s inventory procedures for compliance with 2 C.F.R. 200.302(b)(4). • For equipment items ($5,000 later $10,000 or greater unit cost) OTS staff will review the district’s inventory procedures for compliance with the requirements of 2 C.F. R. 200.313 (d)(1) Anticipated Completion Date August 2025 Responsible Contact Person Amber Polach

Finding Number 2023-010 Subject Heading (Financial) or AL no. and program name (Federal) TITLE I, PART A – GRANTS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES AL #84.010 Planned Corrective Action The Office of Title Services is implementing policies and procedures to demonstrate compliance. We are strengthening our policies and procedures to ensure LEAs are submitting accurate documentation for our SNS Specialist to determine that LEAs are meeting the supplement not supplant requirements. We will ensure that all policies and procedures, as well as the Title I Supplement Not Supplant Tracking Spreadsheet, are uploaded to our internal I-Drive. Anticipated Completion Date May -25 Responsible Contact Person Tammy Smith

Finding Number 2023-102 Subject Heading (Financial) or AL no. and program name (Federal) ALN: 21.027 Federal Program name: Coronavirus State And Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) Planned Corrective Action Management Response The Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services – Grants Management Office (OMES-GMO), in coordination with the Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH), acknowledges the importance of maintaining effective internal controls and complying with federal record retention requirements, as outlined in 2 CFR § 200.303 and 2 CFR § 200.334. OMES-GMO and OSDH concur that improvements to the earlier implemented processes would have served to strengthen protocols designed to garner greater assurances for reimbursed expenditures. In the case identified, ongoing partnership with OMES-GMO resulted in OSDH proactively initiating an internal review, identifying the ineligible expenditures, and taking corrective steps to partially offset the unallowable amount. Subsequently, OSDH Finance has enhanced its internal reimbursement review procedures. As of 2023, all invoices and supporting documentation submitted by subrecipients are subject to a dual-layered review and approval by both OSDH Finance and OMES-GMO prior to reimbursement. This advancement in oversight provides additional controls to reasonably assure that agency expenditures are consistent with approved project scopes, allowable under federal cost principles, and fully documented. Additionally, current staff have received targeted training, and OSDH has implemented a formal onboarding process to ensure that all new staff are trained in federal grant compliance, documentation standards, and internal control requirements. Corrective Actions • Strengthened Review and Approval Process: All subrecipient reimbursements are now reviewed and approved in layers by both OSDH Finance and OMES-GMO staff and leadership prior to payment. This ensures supporting documentation is complete, expenditures are allowable, and spending aligns with the terms of the award. • Ongoing Staff Training and Onboarding: All existing staff participate in continued training on federal cost principles, subrecipient monitoring, and documentation standards. A structured onboarding program is now in place to ensure consistent compliance knowledge across all new hires. • Monitoring and Recoupment Protocols: Post-award monitoring procedures have been updated to support early detection of ineligible expenditures. OSDH will ensure prompt recoupment or reallocation actions are taken, when necessary, in accordance with federal guidelines. These corrective actions demonstrate OMESGMO’s and OSDH’s ongoing commitment to effective stewardship of federal funds, compliance with grant regulations, and continuous improvement of internal controls. Anticipated Completion Date 5/1/2025 Responsible Contact Person OMES: Parker Wise OSDH: Diane Brown, Danielle Smith, Tracey Douglas

Finding Number 2023-101 Subject Heading (Financial) or AL no. and program name (Federal) ALN: 21.027 Federal Program name: Coronavirus State And Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) Planned Corrective Action The Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services – Grants Management Office (OMES-GMO) respectfully disagrees with this finding, specifically with the criteria from the Code of Federal Regulation utilized as the sole foundation for this finding, 2 CFR §200.303. This regulation states, in part that, “The Non-Federal entity must; (a) establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.” (emphasis added). For further clarity as to the standard for reasonableness, clarity can be found in 2 CFR § 200.1 Questioned cost, that states in part: Questioned cost means a cost that is questioned by the auditor because of an audit finding: … (4) where the costs incurred appear unreasonable and do not reflect the actions a prudent person would take in the circumstances. Findings bolstered by the reasonable prudent person standard in 2 CFR §200.303 must not rest on a perfect person standard, nor rest on an experienced auditor standard, but based on the care applied by the ordinary prudent person acting reasonably under the circumstances at the time of their review. From this perspective, the efforts of participants to obtain reasonable assurances included meetings, correspondence, and the gathering of documentation in support of work in furtherance of the program. If the determinations based on the documentation provided at the time satisfy reasonableness upon review, then subsequent documentation will not sustain the finding based on the criteria cited in 2 CFR §200.303. At the outset of the program, DHS was assessed as a low risk subrecipient in part due to its extensive experience with federal awards. Supporting documentation produced by the agency during the period associated with the finding reflected the breakout of the vendor’s hours and rate for the projects. Sustained communication and correspondence between the agencies and the vendor contributed to providing additional assurances that the work was consistent with the documentation in support. Agency-Specific Responses: The identified agency, DHS, provided the following independent response: OKDHS has the backup for each invoice submitted by its contractor, JGC, and reviews the invoices as the hours are reflected in the backup. OKDHS and the supplier keep detailed records and support for all activities related to CSLFRF. The Oklahoma legislation, HB 2884, effective 3/28/2023, appropriates $65 million from ARPA pandemic relief funds to OKDHS for use on 9 projects as approved by the Joint Committee on Pandemic Relief Funds. Without separating administrative costs per project, Section 13 of the bill provides that OKDHS may retain 2% of the funds appropriated in the bill for costs associated with administering the projects in the bill as a whole, "provided that no funds shall be retained that would be disallowable under the provisions of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021". The total administrative allowance to implement HB2884 equates to $1,304,847.00. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 grant guidance for administrative fees at or lower than the accepted de minimis rate (10%) "does not require documentation to justify its use." Anticipated Completion Date N/A Responsible Contact Person OMES: Parker Wise DHS: Jaretta Murphy, Lindsey Kanaly, Danielle Durkee, Katey Campbell

Finding Number 2023-014 Subject Heading (Financial) or AL no. and program name (Federal) ALN: 21.027 Federal Program name: Coronavirus State And Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) Planned Corrective Action Management Response The Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services – Grants Management Office (OMES-GMO) partially agrees with the finding. OMES-GMO acknowledges the importance of robust subrecipient monitoring in accordance with 2 CFR § 200.332(d) and (f), which includes ensuring that all subrecipients expending $750,000 or more in federal funds obtain a Single Audit, as required by 2 CFR § 200.501. OMES-GMO concurs with the identified inconsistency with agencies notifying subrecipients of the single audit threshold amount, despite having deficient tracking of the total of federal expenditures across all federal programs that an entity was engaged in. OMES-GMO holds a good faith belief that this deficiency on behalf of the agencies was the result of a lack of clarity; and ergo, a misinterpretation between individual program thresholds and aggregate thresholds across all programs in a fiscal year. Error may further be attributed to the limitations in tracking mechanisms, rather than a lack of awareness or intent to comply. OMES-GMO has followed up with each of the agencies named in the finding and has verified that, although subrecipient monitoring was in place, additional controls are needed to ensure accurate tracking of total federal expenditures and timely collection of required audits. Listed below are the corrective actions that have or will be implemented. Corrective Actions • Standardized Monitoring Procedures: OMES-GMO will issue updated subrecipient monitoring guidance to all state agencies administering federal funds. This guidance will include clear expectations for tracking total federal expenditures, identifying subrecipients approaching the Single Audit threshold, and documenting audit compliance. • Improved Tracking Mechanisms: OMES-GMO will work with agencies to assess their internal systems for tracking cumulative federal expenditures across funding sources, ensuring timely identification of entities requiring a Single Audit. • Ongoing Support and Oversight: OMES-GMO will incorporate further Single Audit compliance into established review processes. Agency-Specific Actions • Agency 619: Single Audits through 2022 have been obtained and archived. Requests for FY2023 audits have been issued, and responses are currently being collected. FY2024 audits will be requested no later than September 30, 2025, to allow sufficient time for completion and submission. • Agency 340: The Finance Division will begin tracking all subrecipient expenditures, including secondary recipients. Verification of Single Audit compliance will be incorporated into the agency’s annual site visits. • Agency 830: A process is already in place through the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to identify subrecipients exceeding the $750,000 threshold. All subrecipient contracts include language requiring submission of a Single Audit if the threshold is met. These audits are collected, reviewed, and stored accordingly. These corrective actions reflect OMES-GMO’s and the respective agencies’ commitment to strengthening internal controls, ensuring proper oversight of federal funds, and maintaining compliance with all applicable federal requirements. Anticipated Completion Date 6/30/2025 Responsible Contact Person OMES: Parker Wise 619: Sara Librandi, Kami Fullingim 340: Diane Brown, Danielle Smith, Tracey Douglas 830: Jaretta Murphy, Lindsey Kanaly, Danielle Durkee, Katey Campbell

Finding Number 2023-093 Subject Heading (Financial) or AL no. and program name (Federal) ALN: 21.019 Federal Program name: Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERA) Planned Corrective Action Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) acknowledges the Oklahoma State Auditor and Inspector Office’s (SAI) findings that OMES did not implement the proper internal controls and oversight of the ERA Program during FY2023. However, OMES has taken steps to correct these findings and follow the recommendations set forth by SAI. Beginning with FY2025, OMES has taken the following measures: • Oversight and management of the ERA program has been transferred to the OMES Grant Management Office (OMES-GMO) which has staff with several years of grant experience. OMES-GMO has recently hired additional staff, and the two staff members dedicated to the management of the ERA program have 20+ years of combined federal grant specific experience. • To ensure that the subrecipient agreement includes all the required terms under the ERA Program and that the agreement does not expire, OMES-GMO and the Communities of Foundation of Oklahoma (CFO) have recently executed a Subrecipient Grant Agreement Amendment that details the responsibilities of OMES to monitor CFO and the duties and processes that CFO must follow in regard to ERA Program, including detailed cash management policies. See Attached – Grant Agreement Amendment. • OMES-GMO required the return of the remaining ERA2 Program funds from CFO to ensure proper oversight and review of ERA expenditures is performed. • OMES-GMO has a multi-level system of internal controls for grant management and oversight that includes routine monitoring, desk review, and site visits for all projects and associated project/administrative expenditures to ensure allowability, accuracy, and assist in the detection of fraud. For example, OMES-GMO’s process for disbursing funds to a subrecipient requires a written request from the subrecipient with supporting documentation, then OMES-GMO assigns a staff lead and secondary grant analyst to perform a primary and secondary review for compliance and to require additional supporting documentation if needed to approve the request. Once those reviews are completed and approved by the OMES-GMO staff, the Director of the OMES-GMO must approve the request before it is sent to the OMES Finance Division, who will then verify the calculated amount(s) before completing the disbursement to the subrecipient. These internal controls and policies have been implemented for the management and oversight of the ERA Program and provide a multi-layer review that will prevent fraud and risk factors applicable to the ERA program. Additionally, the OMES-GMO staff assigned to the ERA program have the training and knowledge to ensure compliance with the Federal grant requirements. • Depending on the level of risk, OMES-GMO conducts monthly, bi-weekly or weekly meetings with each subrecipient to monitor the progress of projects and address any issues or changes that might impact the project. For the ERA Program, OMES-GMO conducts bi-weekly monitoring meetings with CFO and is currently reviewing documentation provided by CFO to ensure all current ERA projects are eligible under the ERA guidelines and that CFO is exercising the proper oversight over their subrecipients. • OMES-GMO will continue with their current ERA monitoring steps and internal controls and will work with CFO to ensure ERA program funds are spent in accordance with ERA program guidelines and state and federal regulations. Anticipated Completion Date Ongoing throughout the life of the grant Responsible Contact Person Brandy Manek

Finding Number 2023-092 Subject Heading (Financial) or AL no. and program name (Federal) ALN: 21.019 Federal Program name: Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERA) Planned Corrective Action Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) disagrees with the report did include the demographic section, which is a required reporting element. Per the email titled 2025.03.24 Reporting download Issue OIG, page 7 of the pdf request verification the demographic data was received. On page 6 of the attachments a response states that the data for Q1, Q2 and Q3 2023 had been received. Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) acknowledges the Oklahoma State Auditor and Inspector Office’s (SAI) findings that OMES did not implement the proper internal controls and oversight of the ERA Program during FY2023. However, OMES has taken steps to correct these findings and follow the recommendations set forth by SAI. Beginning with FY2025, OMES has taken the following measures: • Oversight and management of the ERA program has been transferred to the OMES Grant Management Office (OMES-GMO) which has staff with several years of grant experience. OMES-GMO has recently hired additional staff, and the two staff members dedicated to the management of the ERA program have 20+ years of combined federal grant specific experience. • To ensure that the subrecipient agreement includes all the required terms under the ERA Program and that the agreement does not expire, OMES-GMO and the Communities of Foundation of Oklahoma (CFO) have recently executed a Subrecipient Grant Agreement Amendment that details the responsibilities of OMES to monitor CFO and the duties and processes that CFO must follow in regard to ERA Program, including detailed cash management policies. See Attached – Grant Agreement Amendment. • OMES-GMO required the return of the remaining ERA2 Program funds from CFO to ensure proper oversight and review of ERA expenditures is performed. • OMES-GMO has a multi-level system of internal controls for grant management and oversight that includes routine monitoring, desk review, and site visits for all projects and associated project/administrative expenditures to ensure allowability, accuracy, and assist in the detection of fraud. For example, OMES-GMO’s process for disbursing funds to a subrecipient requires a written request from the subrecipient with supporting documentation, then OMES-GMO assigns a staff lead and secondary grant analyst to perform a primary and secondary review for compliance and to require additional supporting documentation if needed to approve the request. Once those reviews are completed and approved by the OMES- GMO staff, the Director of the OMES-GMO must approve the request before it is sent to the OMES Finance Division, who will then verify the calculated amount(s) before completing the disbursement to the subrecipient. These internal controls and policies have been implemented for the management and oversight of the ERA Program and provide a multi-layer review that will prevent fraud and risk factors applicable to the ERA program. Additionally, the OMES- GMO staff assigned to the ERA program have the training and knowledge to ensure compliance with the Federal grant requirements. • Depending on the level of risk, OMES-GMO conducts monthly, bi-weekly or weekly meetings with each subrecipient to monitor the progress of projects and address any issues or changes that might impact the project. For the ERA Program, OMES-GMO conducts bi-weekly monitoring meetings with CFO and is currently reviewing documentation provided by CFO to ensure all current ERA projects are eligible under the ERA guidelines and that CFO is exercising the proper oversight over their subrecipients. • OMES-GMO will continue with their current ERA monitoring steps and internal controls and will work with CFO to ensure ERA program funds are spent in accordance with ERA program guidelines and state and federal regulations. Anticipated Completion Date Ongoing throughout the life of the grant Responsible Contact Person Brandy Manek

Finding Number 2023-089 Subject Heading (Financial) or AL no. and program name (Federal) ALN: 21.019 Federal Program name: Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERA) Planned Corrective Action While documenting controls over subrecipient administrative expenditures for the ERA 1 and ERA 2 grants, we noted that OMES did not require the subrecipients to submit supporting documentation for administrative expenditures charged to the programs. Further, we determined one of the subrecipients, Communities Foundation of Oklahoma (CFO), did not have sufficient internal controls over administrative expenditures to ensure they were for allowable costs and activities. Community Foundation of Oklahoma 1. For 15 of 17, or 88.24%, of credit cards tested, the included at least one expenditure for unallowable costs. These costs also included gift cards. ($53,248.41 questioned costs) • We disagree with the finding and questioned costs as the amount for all mentioned questioned costs has been returned to the ERA program. CFO has also strengthened their internal controls and understanding to more accurately identify appropriate expenses to allocate to ERA Admin funds in the future. See attached Internal Controls. 2. For $28,661 of allowable credit card administrative expenditures, the expense was attributable to multiple jurisdictions and only 90.33% of the cost should have been charged to the State of Oklahoma; however, CFO was unable to support the proper allocation was completed and that 100% of the cost was not charged to the State. We determined we would question 9.67% of the allowable expenditures ($2,771.52 questioned costs), since the State paid for expenditures that were the responsibility of other jurisdictions. Note: all credit card transactions were ‘multi’ jurisdictions; however, the unallowable costs are questioned in the first bullet. • See response to 2023-028 - Second Condition and Context. 3. For 2 of 48, or 4.17%, of claims tested, the invoice was not itemized, and we were unable to determine if the administrative costs were allowable. ($32,589.33 questioned costs) • We disagree with the finding. Itemized invoices have been attached in Attachment “OneDrive_1_4_22-2025.zip” 4. For 3 of 48, or 6.25%, of claims tested, the costs were for services to non-profit Shelterwell, which is an organization that was formed by the Executive Director of Community Cares Partners (CCP) with CCP team members after CCP stopped accepting ERA applications. Shelterwell works with tenants and landlords to provide education and mediation between tenants and landlords but is not legally part of Communities Foundation of Oklahoma (CFO)/CCP and does not directly provide rental assistance. Therefore, all payments to Shelterwell do not directly support the administration of the ERA program and are not allowable administrative costs. ($3,847.90 questioned costs) • We partially agree in that the expenses listed for Shelterwell were incorrectly allocated to the Admin account. These expenses should have been expensed from their ERA2 Housing Stability grants. CFO has strengthened our internal controls and understanding to more accurately code and identify expenses, so they are expensed to the correct fund in the future. We partially disagree that the payments made to Shelterwell are unallowable. According to the 2024 ERA Compliance Supplement and FAQ 23, 10% of the funds under ERA1 and ERA2 may be used for housing stability services. The 2024 Compliance Supplement in describing Administrative Expenses, states, "Under ERA 1, a grantee may use up to 10 percent of the total award amount for direct and indirect administrative costs and may use up to 10 percent of the total award amount for housing stability services. Under ERA 2, a grantee may use up to 15 percent of the total award amount for direct and indirect administrative costs and may use up to 10 percent of the total award amount for housing stability services ..." This is also repeated in FAQ23. According to both 2024 Compliance Supplement and FAQ23, housing stability services include but are not limited to: eviction prevention and eviction diversion programs; mediation between landlords and tenants; housing counseling; fair housing counseling; housing navigators or promotors that help households access programs or find housing; case management related to housing stability; housing-related services for survivors of domestic abuse or human trafficking; legal services or attorney’s fees related to eviction proceedings and maintaining housing stability; and specialized services for individuals with disabilities or seniors that support their ability to access or maintain housing. Additionally, under FAQ 21, grantees may use ERA payments to make subawards to other entities, including nonprofit organizations and local governments, to administer ERA programs on behalf of the grantees. Therefore, payments to Shelterwell are allowable expenses b/c these non-profits provided services that fell under the allowable uses for Housing Stability Services and CFO was able to make a subaward to these non- profits in accordance with FAQ 21. 5. For 3 of 48, or 6.25%, of claims tested, the costs were for services for non-profit SidexSide (formerly LastMile) also created by CFO/CCP, which is an organization that provides job skills training and connects employers with participants seeking employment. SidexSide is not legally part of CFO/CCP and does not directly provide rental assistance; therefore, payments made to SidexSide do not directly support the administration of ERA program and are not allowable administrative costs. ($8,824.00 questioned costs) • We partially agree in that the expenses listed for SidexSide were incorrectly allocated to the Admin account. These expenses should have been expensed from their ERA2 Housing Stability grants. CFO has strengthened our internal controls and understanding to more accurately code and identify expenses, so they are expensed to the correct fund in the future. We partially disagree that the payments made to SidexSide are unallowable. According to the 2024 ERA Compliance Supplement and FAQ 23, 10% of the funds under ERA1 and ERA2 may be used for housing stability services. The 2024 Compliance Supplement in describing Administrative Expenses, states, "Under ERA 1, a grantee may use up to 10 percent of the total award amount for direct and indirect administrative costs and may use up to 10 percent of the total award amount for housing stability services. Under ERA 2, a grantee may use up to 15 percent of the total award amount for direct and indirect administrative costs and may use up to 10 percent of the total award amount for housing stability services ..." This is also repeated in FAQ23. According to both 2024 Compliance Supplement and FAQ23, housing stability services include but are not limited to: eviction prevention and eviction diversion programs; mediation between landlords and tenants; housing counseling; fair housing counseling; housing navigators or promotors that help households access programs or find housing; case management related to housing stability; housing-related services for survivors of domestic abuse or human trafficking; legal services or attorney’s fees related to eviction proceedings and maintaining housing stability; and specialized services for individuals with disabilities or seniors that support their ability to access or maintain housing. Additionally, under FAQ 21, grantees may use ERA payments to make subawards to other entities, including non-profit organizations and local governments, to administer ERA programs on behalf of the grantees. Therefore, payments to SidexSide are allowable expenses b/c these non-profits provided services that fell under the allowable uses for Housing Stability Services and CFO was able to make a subaward to these non- profits in accordance with FAQ 21. See attached NON CC 3-SidexSide.program tie to housing stability. 6. For 4 of 48, or 8.33%, of claims tested, the costs were unallowable and included items such as trainings unrelated to ERA, gift cards, alcohol, and food. ($1,549.76 questioned costs) • We agree and the funds were returned. See Attachment “NON CC 4 Refund” 7. For 1 of 48, or 2.08%, of claims tested, the costs were for the Afghan Legal Network project which partnered with CFO to provide ERA funds to Afghanistan refugees; SAI determined these costs are unallowable as the refugees were not Oklahoma residents, and not eligible for assistance. Therefore, administrative costs related to this project were also unallowable. ($498.00 questioned costs) • The expense listed for ALN was incorrectly allocated to the Admin account. This expense should have been expensed from their ERA2 Housing Stability grants. CFO has strengthened our internal controls and understanding to more accurately code and identify expenses, so they are expensed to the correct fund in the future. See also the response to Finding 2023-027. 8. For 1 of 48, or 2.08%, of claims tested, the cost was unrelated to ERA and unallowable. CFO/CCP has refunded the expense using private funds after SAI determined it was unallowable. ($250.00 questioned costs) • We acknowledge that CFO has refunded this expense while the FY23 audit was in process. 9. For 27 of 48, or 56.25%, of claims tested, the cost was allowable; however, the expense was attributable to multiple jurisdictions and only 90.33% of the cost should have been charged to the State. However, CFO/CCP was unable to support the proper allocation was completed and that 100% of the cost was not charged to the State. We question 9.67% of the allowable expenditures ($16,527.61 questioned costs) • See the response to Finding 2023-028 – Second Condition and Context. Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) acknowledges the Oklahoma State Auditor and Inspector Office’s (SAI) findings that OMES did not implement the proper internal controls and oversight of the ERA Program during FY2023. However, OMES has taken steps to correct these findings and follow the recommendations set forth by SAI. Beginning with FY2025, OMES has taken the following measures: • Oversight and management of the ERA program has been transferred to the OMES Grant Management Office (OMES-GMO) which has staff with several years of grant experience. OMES-GMO has recently hired additional staff, and the two staff members dedicated to the management of the ERA program have 20+ years of combined federal grant specific experience. • To ensure that the subrecipient agreement includes all the required terms under the ERA Program and that the agreement does not expire, OMES-GMO and the Communities of Foundation of Oklahoma (CFO) have recently executed a Subrecipient Grant Agreement Amendment that details the responsibilities of OMES to monitor CFO and the duties and processes that CFO must follow in regard to ERA Program, including detailed cash management policies. See Attached – Grant Agreement Amendment. • OMES-GMO required the return of the remaining ERA2 Program funds from CFO to ensure proper oversight and review of ERA expenditures is performed. • OMES-GMO has a multi-level system of internal controls for grant management and oversight that includes routine monitoring, desk review, and site visits for all projects and associated project/administrative expenditures to ensure allowability, accuracy, and assist in the detection of fraud. For example, OMES-GMO’s process for disbursing funds to a subrecipient requires a written request from the subrecipient with supporting documentation, then OMES-GMO assigns a staff lead and secondary grant analyst to perform a primary and secondary review for compliance and to require additional supporting documentation if needed to approve the request. Once those reviews are completed and approved by the OMES-GMO staff, the Director of the OMES-GMO must approve the request before it is sent to the OMES Finance Division, who will then verify the calculated amount(s) before completing the disbursement to the subrecipient. These internal controls and policies have been implemented for the management and oversight of the ERA Program and provide a multilayer review that will prevent fraud and risk factors applicable to the ERA program. Additionally, the OMES-GMO staff assigned to the ERA program have the training and knowledge to ensure compliance with the Federal grant requirements. • Depending on the level of risk, OMES-GMO conducts monthly, bi-weekly or weekly meetings with each subrecipient to monitor the progress of projects and address any issues or changes that might impact the project. For the ERA Program, OMES-GMO conducts bi-weekly monitoring meetings with CFO and is currently reviewing documentation provided by CFO to ensure all current ERA projects are eligible under the ERA guidelines and that CFO is exercising the proper oversight over their subrecipients. • OMES-GMO will continue with their current ERA monitoring steps and internal controls and will work with CFO to ensure ERA program funds are spent in accordance with ERA program guidelines and state and federal regulations. Anticipated Completion Date Ongoing throughout the life of the grant Responsible Contact Person Brandy Manek

Finding Number 2023-028 Subject Heading (Financial) or AL no. and program name (Federal) ALN: 21.019 Federal Program name: Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERA) Planned Corrective Action Condition and Context: While documenting controls over subrecipient program and administrative expenditures for the ERA 1 and ERA 2 grants, we noted that OMES did not require the subrecipients to submit supporting documentation for expenditures charged to the programs. Further, we determined one subrecipient, Communities Foundation of Oklahoma (CFO) did not have sufficient internal controls over program or administrative expenditures to ensure they were for allowable costs and activities. • Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) acknowledges the Oklahoma State Auditor and Inspector Office’s (SAI) findings that OMES did not implement the proper internal controls and oversight of the ERA Program during FY2023. However, OMES has taken steps to correct these findings and follow the recommendations set forth by SAI. Beginning with FY2025, OMES has taken the following measures: • Oversight and management of the ERA program has been transferred to the OMES Grant Management Office (OMES-GMO) which has staff with several years of grant experience. OMES-GMO has recently hired additional staff, and the two staff members dedicated to the management of the ERA program have 20+ years of combined federal grant specific experience. • To ensure that the subrecipient agreement includes all the required terms under the ERA Program and that the agreement does not expire, OMES-GMO and the Communities of Foundation of Oklahoma (CFO) have recently executed a Subrecipient Grant Agreement Amendment that details the responsibilities of OMES to monitor CFO and the duties and processes that CFO must follow in regard to ERA Program, including detailed cash management policies. See Attached – Grant Agreement Amendment. • OMES-GMO required the return of the remaining ERA2 Program funds from CFO to ensure proper oversight and review of ERA expenditures is performed. • OMES-GMO has a multi-level system of internal controls for grant management and oversight that includes routine monitoring, desk review, and site visits for all projects and associated project/administrative expenditures to ensure allowability, accuracy, and assist in the detection of fraud. For example, OMES-GMO’s process for disbursing funds to a subrecipient requires a written request from the subrecipient with supporting documentation, then OMES-GMO assigns a staff lead and secondary grant analyst to perform a primary and secondary review for compliance and to require additional supporting documentation if needed to approve the request. Once those reviews are completed and approved by the OMES- GMO staff, the Director of the OMES-GMO must approve the request before it is sent to the OMES Finance Division, who will then verify the calculated amount(s) before completing the disbursement to the subrecipient. These internal controls and policies have been implemented for the management and oversight of the ERA Program and provide a multi-layer review that will prevent fraud and risk factors applicable to the ERA program. Additionally, the OMESGMO staff assigned to the ERA program have the training and knowledge to ensure compliance with the Federal grant requirements. • Depending on the level of risk, OMES- GMO conducts monthly, bi-weekly or weekly meetings with each subrecipient to monitor the progress of projects and address any issues or changes that might impact the project. For the ERA Program, OMES-GMO conducts bi-weekly monitoring meetings with CFO and is currently reviewing documentation provided by CFO to ensure all current ERA projects are eligible under the ERA guidelines and that CFO is exercising the proper oversight over their subrecipients. • OMES-GMO will continue with their current ERA monitoring steps and internal controls and will work with CFO to ensure ERA program funds are spent in accordance with ERA program guidelines and state and federal regulations. • Community Foundation of Oklahoma (CFO) Due to a classification misunderstanding, CFO recently changed its financial process and is currently tracking expenditures as a subrecipient. CFO does have internal controls for expenditures and using their established process to update the tracking of their expenditures. (attachment internal controls – expenditures) CFO is reconciling the administrative expenses to capture and show the costs associated with administering the program. Condition and Context: While reviewing all administrative management fees, we noted one of the subrecipients charged the ERA 1 and ERA 2 grants $5,585,126.89 in unallowable administrative costs (management fees) that were retained by the subrecipient and were not attributable to providing financial assistance and housing stability services. The management fees the subrecipient charged to the grant do not represent actual admin expenditures, but rather an arbitrary amount retained by CFO (Questioned costs - $5,585,126.89). See management fees referenced in finding 2023-091. • A spreadsheet showing administrative expenses for FY23 is included with the finding response. CFO has used the allocable percentage of 90.33%, as provided by SAI in the finding 2023-088, to show the portion of expenditures attributed to the state ERA program. All previous and subsequent years are currently going through the same reconciliation effort. Any charges that were deemed unallowable by SAI during this audit or previous audits, such as credit card charges, will be removed from the actual expenditures spreadsheet and noted in the financial software. Transactional data from the subrecipients' financial system are included as backup for the administrative expenses. Documentation was previously not requested for CFO’s expenditures. Supporting documentation is being provided at this time to substantiate the response more fully. CFO has included a sample of personnel expenses in the response to this finding as a show of good faith. (Attachment 2022-08 CFO Payroll Support Docs, OneDrive _1 _4 _22-2025) Condition and Context: In addition, during our test work for the ERA 1 program administrative limit, we noted that administrative costs charged to the program exceeded the 10% allowable limit by 5.81%, or $1,259,429 • Being this is a multiple year grant program that was set up as earned administrative funds based upon programmatic spend, an ebb and flow of admin earned, and expended, is directly in relation to the programmatic spend. Looking at one fiscal year as a snapshot does not present the entire picture accurately. Over the course of the grant, the administrative funds earned have been at or under the cap established by Treasury. accurately. Over the course of the grant, the administrative funds earned have been at or under the cap established by Treasury. Anticipated Completion Date Ongoing throughout the life of the grant Responsible Contact Person Brandy Manek

Finding Number 2023-027 Subject Heading (Financial) or AL no. and program name (Federal) ALN: 21.019 Federal Program name: Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERA) Planned Corrective Action AUDIT BULLET POINT “Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Eligibility exceptions: • For 22 of 89, or 24.72%, of items tested, the applicant was an Afghanistan refugee and not a renter who lived in Oklahoma at the time of applying for assistance; therefore, they were not eligible, and the payment was unallowable. The subrecipient, Communities Foundation of Oklahoma, paid for the applicant to be in a hotel and then subsequently paid for their rent and utilities. Since the applicants were not eligible all payments were unallowable; therefore, we did not determine if the payment was calculated correctly or if the assistance exceeded 15 months for ERA 1 or 18 months for ERA 2. However, of these unallowable costs, we noted the following: • Some applicants were reimbursed for monthly lawn services as part of their monthly rental payment. • Several payments were made to the applicants after the initial payment without receiving an additional application or additional funds request (AFR) form (See FAQ #10).” OMES RESPONSE: The State disagrees that payments made to Afghan refugees were unallowable. The finding asserts that 22 applicants were ineligible for Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) because they were Afghan refugees and were not “renters who lived in Oklahoma at the time of applying.” This interpretation is inconsistent with U.S. Department of the Treasury guidance, which does not require U.S. citizenship, legal residency, or prior tenancy in Oklahoma as a condition of eligibility. • Citizenship or Legal Residency Is Not a Requirement for ERA Eligibility. It is never mentioned in the ERA statute or Treasury guidance that U.S. citizenship, lawful residency, or duration of tenancy required. The U.S. Treasury’s ERA FAQ #1 explicitly outlines the four criteria for eligibility: • The household must be obligated to pay rent on a residential dwelling; • One or more individuals within the household must have experienced financial hardship due to the pandemic; • The household must demonstrate a risk of homelessness or housing instability; • Household income must be at or below 80% of area median income (AMI). These Afghan households were invited by our government leaders to resettle in Oklahoma as part of the federal government’s Operation Allies Welcome initiative. When the Afghans arrived in Oklahoma, they immediately sought housing, being assisted by agencies such as Catholic Charities. Obviously, they were not homeowners. As tenants or households seeking to rent housing during the midst of a pandemic without any immediate means of securing employment, they were experiencing housing instability and fully met the ERA Program 1 and 2 criteria. Upon arrival: • They were not homeowners; • They had no permanent housing; • They were working with nonprofit agencies like Catholic Charities to find housing; • Because of the pandemic, they were not able to secure work and had no or extremely low income; • They were at imminent risk of homelessness. Treasury has further emphasized in FAQ #1, “… these requirements provide for various means of documentation so that grantees may extend this emergency assistance to vulnerable populations without imposing undue documentation burdens…” Again, never is the word “residence or citizen” used, even in the footnotes. This language was clearly intended to include undocumented individuals, newly arrived refugees, and others in nontraditional or transitional housing situations. Furthermore, as noted in the CFO/CCP ERA application for rental assistance previously provided to SAI, the eligibility requirements do not require residency but that only the applicant live in the State of Oklahoma. Further Support: • September 9, 2021, Email between CCP/CFO and the Director of Tax and Housing Advocacy for the National Council of State Housing Agencies. Discusses that CCP was working with housing stability service partners, specifically Catholic Charities, to help with housing Afghans when they came to Oklahoma. Emails also clarify that the Afghan refugees would only be able to apply once they moved to Oklahoma. (See attached) • Sept 29, 2021 – Email from U.S. Dept. of State, Bureau of Populations, Refugees, and Migration (PRM), U.S. Department of State, which invited a variety of Federal Agency representatives to a call to hear from the OK Catholic Charities director to speak about the Oklahoma Catholic Charities “model of utilizing CARES Act funding to support both temporary and long term housing for Afghan arrivals and an additional hour was set aside for discussion of this model. Executive Director of the Oklahoma City Catholic Charities forwarded this email to CCP asking if she would join to assist with the discussion of this model. Listed below are the agencies that had representatives on the email. the National Security Council and Subcommittees  The White House – Organization of the National Security Council and Subcommittees  Executive Office of the President.  U.S. Department  Federal FEMA Office  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services  Homeland Security  Catholic Charities  U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops  Administration of Children & Families  Governors, Biden Administration point person for Afghan Parolee Assistance. (See attached) • October 3, 2021, Follow-up Email thanking people regarding the presentation and for joining the call. “The insight, creativity, and partnership is inspiring and has the potential to assist so many Afghans.” Furthermore, an email was to the attendees of the presentation clarifying ERA as the funding source for Oklahoma’s model for developing housing resource for Afghan arrival. Additionally, it was stated that “We hope that these clarifications and enclosed links will help us understand how these funds may be leveraged to house Afghans when they are resettled from the bases to other locations around the country.” (see attached) • October 24, 2021, Email from ERA Outreach Team Leader, Emergency Housing Team, U.S. Department of the Treasury, to CCP wanting to connect them with Chicago who was looking to do some work with asylum seekers/refugees and was wanting to talk to other grantees who have worked with these populations using ERA funds. Note, this is an ERA Team Leader from the Treasury wanting CCP to share CCP/CFO’s ERA model. Obviously, the Treasury would not reach out to connect CCP/CFO to speak about their Afghan refugee model if they did not approve of the use of ERA funds to assist with housing the refugees. (See attached) • Treasury FAQ #37 – Addresses how grantees can promote access to assistance for all eligible households and is clear that the Guidance contemplates serving individuals from all background and nationalities, stating that grantees “should address barriers … including by providing program documents in multiple languages.” Furthermore, the Guidance states “Grantees should also provide, whether directly or through partner organizations, culturally and linguistically relevant outreach and housing stability services to ensure access to assistance for all eligible households.” In accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) ERA grantees must ensure they provide meaningful access to their limited-Englishproficiency (LEP) applicants and beneficiaries of their federally assisted programs, services, and activities. Finally, “Denial of an LEP person’s access to federally assisted programs, services, and activities is a form of nationalorigin discrimination prohibited under Title VI and Treasury’s Title VI implementing regulations at 31 CFR Part 22.” • Treasury guidance on creating applications for the ERA program with no mention of citizenship or residency requirements. Allow applicants to progress and self-attest if they cannot provide documentation - At the stage when applicants are asked to provide documents to establish COVID hardship, housing instability, income, or rental obligation, applicants should also be informed that they may self-attest and move forward in the application if they do not have those documents. • Disaster Housing Recovery Coalition, C/O National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) – Published an information sheet for recipients of Federal awards in response to the COVID-19 pandemic which detailed which awards did not consider immigration status when providing assistance. Under the ERA Program, the NLIHC stated that “The law establishing the Emergency Rental Assistance Program does not impose restrictions based on immigration status.” (Attached – labeled FAQs- Eligibility for Assistance Based on Immigration Status) 2. Hotel Stays Are Allowable Options for Temporarily Displaced Households Treasury provided a Broader Reading of “Obligated to Pay Rent on a Residential Dwelling,” and determined the costs of staying in a hotel are eligible expenses, and rental assistance could be provided to temporarily displaced households living in hotels. The audit finding narrowly interprets the term “obligated to pay rent” in FAQ #1. However, multiple Treasury FAQs — including FAQ #7, #26, and #35 — demonstrate that the Department intended a flexible, inclusive interpretation, recognizing the emergency nature of the program and the housing challenges faced by displaced individuals and families and reinforces that the term “residential dwelling” is not limited to traditional apartments with leases but includes hotels and other temporary housing used in transition. • FAQ #7: Permits hotel or motel costs to be covered using ERA funds when the household lacks alternative housing options, even without a formal lease. • FAQ #26: States that rental assistance may be provided to households residing temporarily in hotels or motels when they are • displaced or between housing. FAQ #27: Allows rental assistance for rent-to- own households, further demonstrating that the key is ERA CANNOT be used for homeowners (FAQ #20). • FAQ #35: Specifically authorizes relocation assistance for households who have been evicted or otherwise displaced and are attempting to secure new permanent housing. These provisions explicitly contemplate support for individuals and families—such as Afghan refugees— who were temporarily displaced and used hotels as the only available rental housing (in truth, many Oklahomans are forced to do this) until suitable housing could be secured (rendered more difficult for larger families – up to 10+ children). As allowed under Treasury ERA FAQs #7 and #26, hotel stays were covered when used as transitional housing due to lack of available rental stock—especially for large families. Afghan refugees fell squarely within this provision. 3. Lawn Services as Part of Rent This is allowable as part of the cost of the rental of the premises. For all rentals that have a yard there is lawn maintenance, and the landlord has the option to determine how to charge (or absorb) that cost. These costs were not reimbursed as separate utility costs, but as part of the monthly rental obligation agreed to in writing. 4. Subsequent Payments Without AFR Forms • ERA guidance allows grantees to implement streamlined processes to reduce burden and deliver aid efficiently. CCP’s internal policies permitted continued rental and utility assistance without requiring new applications or additional AFR forms, so long as eligibility remained unchanged and appropriate documentation was on file. This approach is aligned with Treasury’s consistent encouragement to minimize administrative barriers in the interest of program responsiveness and urgency. Treasury guidance also stated, Only ask applicants for information that is required by the ERA statutes and Treasury’s guidance to provide them assistance. AUDIT BULLET POINT “Further, while summarizing the data on ‘applicant’, we noted one line item was made up of 498 individual payments made to hotels on behalf of the Afghanistan refugees, which consisted of 186 applicants. We identified 185 of these applicants had payments for Afghanistan refugees to live in hotels prior to applying to the ERA program. Since, at the time of the application, they were not obligated to pay rent on a residential dwelling per Department of Treasury FAQ 1 and established CCP ERA policy, the cost is unallowable. This resulted in $1,727,687.64 in questioned costs (these costs do not include payments previously questioned in the first bullet).” OMES RESPONSE: OMES disagrees with this finding. Multiple Treasury FAQs, including #7, #26, and #35, reinforces the term “residential dwelling” is not limited to traditional apartments but may include hotels and other temporary housing used in transition. Also, FAQ #8 states that a beneficiary is not required to have rental arrears to receive assistance and permits enrollment “of households for only prospective benefits.” The only restriction is that for the ERA1 program, if an applicant is requesting prospective assistance and the applicant also has rental arrears, the grantee must also provide assistance to reduce those arrears (this restriction does not apply to ERA2). Finally, per FAQ # 13, eligible households do not have to be in their current rental home when the COVID-19 public health emergency was declared, stating, “Payments under ERA are provided to help households meet housing costs that they are unable to meet as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is no requirement regarding the length of tenure in the current unit.” Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) acknowledges the Oklahoma State Auditor and Inspector Office’s (SAI) findings that OMES did not implement the proper internal controls and oversight of the ERA Program during FY2023. However, OMES has taken steps to correct these findings and follow the recommendations set forth by SAI. Beginning with FY2025, OMES has taken the following measures: • Oversight and management of the ERA program has been transferred to the OMES Grant Management Office (OMES-GMO) which has staff with several years of grant experience. OMES-GMO has recently hired additional staff, and the two staff members dedicated to the management of the ERA program have 20+ years of combined federal grant specific experience. • To ensure that the subrecipient agreement includes all the required terms under the ERA Program and that the agreement does not expire, OMES-GMO and the Communities of Foundation of Oklahoma (CFO) have recently executed a Subrecipient Grant Agreement Amendment that details the responsibilities of OMES to monitor CFO and the duties and processes that CFO must follow in regard to ERA Program, including detailed cash management policies. See Attached – Grant Agreement Amendment. • OMES-GMO required the return of the remaining ERA2 Program funds from CFO to ensure proper oversight and review of ERA expenditures is performed. • OMES-GMO has a multi-level system of internal controls for grant management and oversight that includes routine monitoring, desk review, and site visits for all projects and associated project/administrative expenditures to ensure allowability, accuracy, and assist in the detection of fraud. For example, OMESGMO’s process for disbursing funds to a subrecipient requires a written request from the subrecipient with supporting documentation, then OMES-GMO assigns a staff lead and secondary grant analyst to perform a primary and secondary review for compliance and to require additional supporting documentation if needed to approve the request. Once those reviews are completed and approved by the OMES-GMO staff, the Director of the OMESGMO must approve the request before it is sent to the OMES Finance Division, who will then verify the calculated amount(s) before completing the disbursement to the subrecipient. These internal controls and policies have been implemented for the management and oversight of the ERA Program and provide a multi-layer review that will prevent fraud and risk factors applicable to the ERA program. Additionally, the OMES-GMO staff assigned to the ERA program have the training and knowledge to ensure compliance with the Federal grant requirements. • Depending on the level of risk, OMES-GMO conducts monthly, bi-weekly or weekly meetings with each subrecipient to monitor the progress of projects and address any issues or changes that might impact the project. For the ERA Program, OMES-GMO conducts biweekly monitoring meetings with CFO and is currently reviewing documentation provided by CFO to ensure all current ERA projects are eligible under the ERA guidelines and that CFO is exercising the proper oversight over their subrecipients. OMES-GMO will continue with their current ERA monitoring steps and internal controls and will work with CFO to ensure ERA program funds are spent in accordance with ERA program guidelines and state and federal regulations. Anticipated Completion Date Ongoing throughout the life of the grant Responsible Contact Person Brandy Manek

Finding Number 2023-026 Subject Heading (Financial) or AL no. and program name (Federal) ALN: 21.019 Federal Program name: Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERA) Planned Corrective Action Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) acknowledges the Oklahoma State Auditor and Inspector Office’s (SAI) findings that OMES did not implement the proper internal controls and oversight of the ERA Program during FY2023. However, OMES has taken steps to correct these findings and follow the recommendations set forth by SAI. Beginning with FY2025, OMES has taken the following measures: • Oversight and management of the ERA program has been transferred to the OMES Grant Management Office (OMES-GMO) which has staff with several years of grant experience. OMES-GMO has recently hired additional staff, and the two staff members dedicated to the management of the ERA program have 20+ years of combined federal grant specific experience. • To ensure that the subrecipient agreement includes all the required terms under the ERA Program and that the agreement does not expire, OMES-GMO and the Communities of Foundation of Oklahoma (CFO) have recently executed a Subrecipient Grant Agreement Amendment that details the responsibilities of OMES to monitor CFO and the duties and processes that CFO must follow in regard to ERA Program, including detailed cash management policies. See Attached – Grant Agreement Amendment. (See page 15 of attached Grant Agreement.) • OMES-GMO required the return of the remaining ERA2 Program funds from CFO to ensure proper oversight and review of ERA expenditures is performed. • OMES-GMO has a multi-level system of internal controls for grant management and oversight that includes routine monitoring, desk review, and site visits for all projects and associated project/administrative expenditures to ensure allowability, accuracy, and assist in the detection of fraud. For example, OMES-GMO’s process for disbursing funds to a subrecipient requires a written request from the subrecipient with supporting documentation, then OMES-GMO assigns a staff lead and secondary grant analyst to perform a primary and secondary review for compliance and to require additional supporting documentation if needed to approve the request. Once those reviews are completed and approved by the OMES-GMO staff, the Director of the OMESGMO must approve the request before it is sent to the OMES Finance Division, who will then verify the calculated amount(s) before completing the disbursement to the subrecipient. These internal controls and policies have been implemented for the management and oversight of the ERA Program and provide a multi-layer review that will prevent fraud and risk factors applicable to the ERA program. Additionally, the OMES- GMO staff assigned to the ERA program have the training and knowledge to ensure compliance with the Federal grant requirements. • Risk assessments have been obtained and are attached. • Depending on the level of risk, OMES-GMO conducts monthly, bi-weekly or weekly meetings with each subrecipient to monitor the progress of projects and address any issues or changes that might impact the project. For the ERA Program, OMES-GMO conducts biweekly monitoring meetings with CFO and is currently reviewing documentation provided by CFO to ensure all current ERA projects are eligible under the ERA guidelines and that CFO is exercising the proper oversight over their subrecipients. • OMES-GMO will continue with their current ERA monitoring steps and internal controls and will work with CFO to ensure ERA program funds are spent in accordance with ERA program guidelines and state and federal regulations. Anticipated Completion Date Ongoing throughout the life of the grant Responsible Contact Person Brandy Manek

Finding Number 2023-108 Subject Heading (Financial) or AL no. and program name (Federal) ALN: 21.019 Federal Program name: Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) Planned Corrective Action The State agrees with this finding. Within OMES, oversight and management of Federal grants has been transferred to the OMES Grant Management Office (OMES-GMO) which is staffed with individuals with several years of grant experience. OMES-GMO has a multi-level system of internal controls for grant management and oversight that includes routine monitoring, desk review, and site visits for all projects and associated project/administrative expenditures to ensure allowability, accuracy, and assist in the detection of fraud. Finally, OMES Finance has developed processes which provide for a more thorough coding of expenditures and proper review of expenditures when reporting on their GAAP Z. The State disagrees with the finding. The State had two Grant Award Notifications in place with the Boys and Girls Club which reflects the monies awarded to be used on the capital improvements and Club on the Go Mobile Clubhouses. This indicates the funds were obligated during the covered period. Per the email from the Keri for Jill Geiger Consulting, no signatures on the GANs were required and the Uniform Guidance does not require the GAN to be signed. Within OMES, oversight and management of Federal grants has been transferred to the OMES Grant Management Office (OMES-GMO) which is staffed with individuals with several years of grant experience. OMES-GMO has a multi-level system of internal controls for grant management and oversight that includes routine monitoring, desk review, and site visits for all projects and associated project/administrative expenditures to ensure allowability, accuracy, and assist in the detection of fraud. OMESGMO’s internal control processes ensure subrecipient risk assessments are performed and that proper grant awarding documentation is provided to subrecipients. Anticipated Completion Date September 2022 Responsible Contact Person Brandy Manek

Finding Number 2023-098 Subject Heading (Financial) or AL no. and program name (Federal) ALN: 21.019 Federal Program name: Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) Planned Corrective Action OMES Finance has implemented proper controls for their SEFA process to ensure costs are reported on the correct basis of accounting. OMES agrees with this finding and has put measures in place to correct this issue. Within OMES, oversight and management of Federal grants has been transferred to the OMES Grant Management Office (OMES-GMO) which is staffed with individuals with several years of grant experience. OMES-GMO has a multi-level system of internal controls which includes a process for reviewing funding requests to ensure expenditures are allowable under the federal guidelines. The State agrees. Although the delivery of the software occurred during the covered period, the invoice was paid outside of the liquidation period. The State agrees with this finding and has put measures in place to correct this issue. Within OMES, oversight and management of Federal grants has been transferred to the OMES Grant Management Office (OMES-GMO) which is staffed with individuals with several years of grant experience. OMES-GMO has a multi-level system of internal controls which includes a process for reviewing funding requests to ensure expenditures are allowable under the federal guidelines. Anticipated Completion Date September 2022 Responsible Contact Person Brandy Manek

Finding Number 2023-096 Subject Heading (Financial) or AL no. and program name (Federal) ALN: 21.019 Federal Program name: Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) Planned Corrective Action The State agrees with this finding. Within OMES, oversight and management of Federal grants has been transferred to the OMES Grant Management Office (OMES-GMO) which is staffed with individuals with several years of grant experience. OMES-GMO has a multi-level system of internal controls for grant management and oversight that includes routine monitoring, desk review, and site visits for all projects and associated project/administrative expenditures to ensure allowability, accuracy, and assist in the detection of fraud. Finally, OMES Finance has developed processes which provide for a more thorough coding of expenditures and proper review of expenditures when reporting on their GAAP Z. The State disagrees with the finding. The State had two Grant Award Notifications in place with the Boys and Girls Club which reflects the monies awarded to be used on the capital improvements and Club on the Go Mobile Clubhouses. This indicates the funds were obligated during the covered period. Per the email from the Keri for Jill Geiger Consulting, no signatures on the GANs were required and the Uniform Guidance does not require the GAN to be signed. Anticipated Completion Date September 2022 Responsible Contact Person Brandy Manek

Finding Number 2023-094 Subject Heading (Financial) or AL no. and program name (Federal) ALN: 21.019 Federal Program name: Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) Planned Corrective Action The State agrees in part and the State disagrees in part. In regard to payments made to Jill Geiger Consulting in the amounts of $39,957.00 and $28,272.00, please see attached documentation of time and effort of services provided during FY2023 which were also paid with by CRF funds in FY2023. Please scroll down on the timesheet reports and refer to the Notes column for descriptions. Additionally, the CRF weekly update log is from JGC and gives more details for services provided. For the payments made to Jill Geiger Consulting for the other amounts ($27,083.33 and $34,650), these reimbursements occurred in FY2023 but were not for services provided in FY2023, but for FY2022. If you review the “Summary of requested vouchers Jill Geiger,” the payment of $34,650 occurred on 8/1/2022 but was paid to cover services in May and June 2022. For invoice v00160672 in the amount of $27,083.33, the payment was made July 5, 2022 (FY23) but covered services for April 22 (FY22). You will be able to see more instances of this in the Summary and attached invoices for that same amount. Therefore, the State requests these be taken out of the audit review and findings for FY2023 as the services were not provided in FY2023. The State of Oklahoma agrees in part and disagrees in part. The State agrees that a multi-level system of internal controls for grant management and oversight that includes routine monitoring, desk review, and site visits for all projects and associated project/administrative expenditures, will help ensure allowability, accuracy, and assist in the detection of fraud. Within OMES, oversight and management of Federal grants has been transferred to the OMES Grant Management Office (OMES-GMO). The OMES-GMO is staffed with individuals, who have several years of grant experience implementing these internal controls and procedures. Anticipated Completion Date September 2022 Responsible Contact Person Brandy Manek

Finding Number 2023-062 Subject Heading (Financial) or AL no. and program name (Federal) ALN: 21.019 Federal Program name: Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) Planned Corrective Action The State agrees with this finding. The State is attaching OIG Financial Progress Reports. Cycle 11 accounts for the full and final amount of the grant. The State of Oklahoma agrees and has strengthened their controls over financial reporting of federal grant awards to ensure the amounts are accurately reported. Also, the State will ensure quarterly Financial Progress Reports are properly retained for the appropriate length of time by abiding by state and federal guidelines for the retention of documentation. Within OMES, oversight and management of Federal grants has been transferred to the OMES Grant Management Office (OMES-GMO) which is staffed with individuals with several years of grant experience. OMES-GMO has a multilevel system of internal controls for grant management and oversight that includes routine monitoring, desk review, and site visits for all projects and associated project/administrative expenditures to ensure allowability, accuracy, and assist in the detection of fraud. Anticipated Completion Date September 2022 Responsible Contact Person Brandy Manek

Finding Number 2023-013 Subject Heading (Financial) or AL no. and program name (Federal) 20.509 - Formula Grants for Rural Areas Planned Corrective Action We concur with the auditor’s recommendation. OMPT—We will develop and implement risk assessments as part of our sub-recipient monitoring process and revise existing procedures related to single audits. Lastly, we will meet with Internal Audit, formerly CWO, to establish a process to ensure audit reviews are documented and received. Internal Audit - Unfortunately the issues that occurred in last year’s audit, also effected the transactions selected in this year’s audit. It should be noted that 6 of the 11 missing files were provided to SA&I, however most of those audits were not performed in a timely manner. After the finding last year many changes were implemented in the Audit Office, including a change in management of the Grants and Contract Auditing area. A Smartsheet application is in now in use that allows OMPT to check on the status of audits at any time. We also have done extensive cross training on these single audit reviews and we are currently performing these audits in a timely manner as they come in. Anticipated Completion Date 7/1/2025 Responsible Contact Person OMPT - Eric Rose/Bobby Parkinson Anne Antonelli, Internal Audit – Holly Lowe

Finding Number 2023-011 Subject Heading (Financial) or AL no. and program name (Federal) 20.509 - Formula Grants for Rural Areas Planned Corrective Action We concur with the auditor’s recommendation. Staff will be trained on how to reconcile & identify discrepancies. Anticipated Completion Date September 2025 Responsible Contact Person Sam Ddamba

Finding Number 2023-036 Subject Heading (Financial) or AL no. and program name (Federal) #17.225 Unemployment Insurance Planned Corrective Action OESC concurs with the audit findings and agrees with the recommendation. The agency also acknowledges the importance of data integrity when reporting ETA 9128 activities and the important role such reporting plays in evaluating and monitoring the RESEA program. OESC realized there was an issue with the RESEA enrollments opened during 3rd quarter 2021 and worked on creating procedures to ensure enrollments opened properly. As referenced in the agency’s response to this same finding last year, in January 2023, administrative staff identified issues with enrollments not opening with a recently implemented technology tool. The agency subsequently decided to abandon the new technology and revert to its original scheduling system. OESC worked with the OKJM vendor to ensure all required services are opened automatically when the RESEA enrollment is established. In December 2023, OESC initiated a process to verify the enrollments opened and perform monthly review of all enrollments to ensure all data elements are captured for all participants. This process involves a high degree of manual effort which presents higher risk for inaccuracies. In conjunction with the agency’s modernization efforts, significant work has been directed at implementing solutions to address both the case management and data reporting requirements needed to fully resolve this finding. Anticipated Completion Date Ongoing until modernization of RESEA tools is complete Responsible Contact Person Tammy Wood, RESEA/TAA Program Manager

Finding Number 2023-035 Subject Heading (Financial) or AL no. and program name (Federal) #17.225 Unemployment Insurance Planned Corrective Action The agency concurs with the findings and agrees with the recommendation. The agency acknowledges our responsibility for program integrity and proper controls for the RESEA program. As we referenced in our response last year, the agency has undertaken modernization efforts to provide better solutions for the RESEA program. EmployOklahoma is the first result of this effort in the workforce employment area and it launched in January 2025 as the replacement for OKJM. The majority of the findings above were related to cases pulled for the period between July 2022 and December 2022; there was improvement in the period from January 2023 to June 2023. We anticipate continued progress and improvement going forward, but there will continue to be elevated risk for inaccuracies until the agency’s modernization efforts are successful in implementing solutions to address both the case management and data reporting requirements needed to fully resolve these findings. Anticipated Completion Date Ongoing until modernization of RESEA tools is complete Responsible Contact Person Tammy Wood, RESEA/TAA Program Manager

Finding Number 2023-031 Subject Heading (Financial) or AL no. and program name (Federal) #17.225 Unemployment Insurance Planned Corrective Action OESC concurs with the audit finding and agrees with the recommendation. The agency also acknowledges the importance of data integrity in submitting the ETA 9050, ETA 9052 and ETA 9055 reports. Programming was completed in June 2023 to retain backup of the detailed data at the time each report is run. As part of OESC’s technology modernization efforts, technical resources continue to review reporting requirements for all regulatory reports and validate the accuracy of programming that supports such reporting. DOL completed a Data Validation monitoring of OESC in May 2024, and the DOL reviewers shared favorable comments regarding OESC’s modernization efforts, and the agency was able to satisfy DOL with regard to the area of concern and finding identified in their review. OESC leadership expects to address the underlying causes for this finding as part of our modernization efforts. Anticipated Completion Date Programming completed in June 2023 to retain backup data; data validation for regulatory reports is ongoing as part of OESC technology modernization efforts. Responsible Contact Person Michelle Britten, Chief Administrative Officer

Finding Number 2023-044 Subject Heading (Financial) or AL no. and program name (Federal) CN CLUSTER – SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM; NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM, SPECIAL MILK PROGRAM FOR CHILDREN, FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES PROGRAM AL #10.553, 10.555; 10.556; 10.559; 10.582 Planned Corrective Action Child Nutrition programs can modify the claim and reporting systems to pull information for all payments meeting the FFATA reporting requirements for funds paid in excess of $30,000 cumulatively annually to a subrecipient. However, we cannot give a corrective action plan for the actual upload to US Spending.com due to the discontinuation of the FSFR website used to upload FFATA reports on March 6th, 2025. This is being replaced by SAM.gov utilizing an API process. There is currently no guidance to States on how this will done once the new API process is ready to be implemented. Once we have guidance on how the information will be collected and uploaded, we can work with OMES to create an upload and reconciliation process. Anticipated Completion Date July 1, 2025, or when the US Spending system update is available. Responsible Contact Person Jennifer Weber