Corrective Action Plans

Finding 2024-002 Finding Subject: Economic Development Cluster – Reporting Summary of Finding: Material Weakness, Other Matters The data submitted in the SF-425 report submitted by the city for the reporting period ending on 9/30/24 contained the following errors: • Cash Receipts Understated by $1,037,155 • Cash Disbursements Understated by $1,037,155 The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was isolated to the award 06-79-06420 EDA-Davis Road Construction project. Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: Weston Reed Contact Phone Number and Email Address: 765-456-7380 wreed@cityofkokomo.org Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with the finding. Description of Corrective Action Plan: City of Kokomo will design and implement a procedures where the Federal Financial Report and the Quarterly progress report will be reviewed by the director of development to ensure that there is oversight and that the report is complete and accurate. Anticipated Completion Date: December 31, 2025

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 2023-088 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: When reviewing SFY23 payroll administrative expenditures, we noted that Communities Foundation of Oklahoma paid $2,372,400 in bonuses to 146 employees. Of these bonuses, 47 people received between $10,000 - $19,999, and 44 people received more than $20,000. We found the expenditures to be unallowable; we found no guidance that stated ERA administrative funds could be expended on bonuses. • Community Cares Partners (CCP) was established as a temporary, emergencyresponse initiative tasked with administering Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) funds on behalf of the State of Oklahoma and multiple jurisdictions. Although initially conceived as a short-term project, CCP ultimately administered nearly $150 million in federal funds over multiple years in response to a historic public health and housing crisis. To meet U.S. Treasury mandates to rapidly disburse funds—or risk recapture—CCP had to scale quickly, adapt continuously, and deliver results under unprecedented pressure. The complexity of federal guidance, evolving compliance expectations, and intense audit scrutiny required a workforce that was agile, highly skilled, and capable of operating in a fast- paced, high-stakes environment. To achieve this, Communities Foundation of Oklahoma (CFO), as CCP’s fiscal sponsor, implemented an innovative staffing model in which all CCP team members—including leadership—were engaged as independent contractors. This model allowed for rapid onboarding and deployment of services without placing undue strain on CFO’s internal team or disrupting the core functions of other nonprofit and government agencies during the pandemic. However, because these contractors were not employees, they did not receive traditional benefits such as health insurance, paid time off, or retirement contributions. To support retention, motivation, and high performance in the absence of such benefits, CCP established a performance bonus structure, as outlined in its “Fee-for-Services Rendered” policy. Bonuses were based on merit and tied directly to both individual and team accomplishments. Performance Bonuses Were Structured, Purposeful, and Aligned with Program Goals Bonuses were awarded in recognition of critical achievements, such as the complete spend-down of ERA-1 funds before the federal deadline—a milestone that required sustained, coordinated effort well beyond routine contract deliverables. These incentives were calculated using a combination of objective factors, including: · Tenure with the organization (recognizing longterm commitment); Recommendation of the team director (based on direct performance observations); · Average weekly hours worked (accounting for parttime vs. full-time contributions); · Pay rate and level of responsibility (reflecting role complexity and expectations); · Performance indicators such as quality of work, accuracy, initiative, leadership, teamwork, positive attitude, and contributions to process improvements. Bonuses were not automatic or uniformly distributed. Rather, they were awarded based on documented performance and in alignment with the responsibilities and accomplishments of each contractor. The process involved director-level recommendations and required approvals from CCP’s Chief Operating Officer and the Executive Director of CFO, ensuring appropriate oversight and accountability. Allowability Under Federal Guidelines While the ERA guidance does not specifically address performance bonuses, U.S. Treasury FAQs instruct grantees to establish their own internal policies and procedures—consistent with the statutes—and to follow them consistently when specific guidance is not provided. CCP’s bonus practices followed this directive. Moreover, the incentive structure aligns with the principles in 2 CFR § 200.430(f), which permits incentive compensation when it is reasonable, tied to performance, and paid pursuant to a good-faith agreement established before services are rendered. These bonus payments were not arbitrary. They were essential tools for incentivizing high-quality performance, encouraging efficiency and innovation, and sustaining a capable team during a national emergency. Each bonus was grounded in documented policy, approved through established protocols, and tied to clearly defined. For 4 of 116, or 3.45% of claims tested, the contract was for an unreasonable rate and the invoices provided were not itemized and specific enough to determine if the time spent was for an allowable activity related to ERA 1 or ERA 2. • The contract rates for CCP’s executive leadership—specifically, Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer were reasonable and justified given the scope of responsibility, experience, and industry standards. Both leaders operated as full-time independent contractors (a structure applied to all team members at CCP), and neither received employee benefits such as health insurance or paid time off, which materially impacts total compensation calculations. CCP was a high-capacity public-private partnership program of CFO. CCP/CFO was responsible for administering over $440 million in Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) funds from the U.S. Department of the Treasury on behalf of the State of Oklahoma and multiple local jurisdictions. CCP executive leadership managed a team of more than 150 individuals and carried out complex, time- sensitive operations to deliver critical housing stability services during the COVID- 19 public health emergency. Industry benchmarks (e.g., Guidestar / Candid data, 990 analyses) show that for nonprofits with comparable annual budgets ($150M+), full-time executive compensation for experienced leaders often ranges from $175,000 to over $300,000 annually— excluding benefits. Both contractors brought more than 15 years of relevant leadership experience and operated within that reasonable range. Their rates reflected both the magnitude of the public responsibility and the demands of launching and managing a large-scale, federally funded program under emergency conditions. Regarding invoice specificity, the submitted invoices reflected agreed- upon deliverables and outcomes consistent with contract terms and allowable activities under federal guidance. While not time-stamped or broken down by hour, they were reviewed and approved based on performance milestones. Additional documentation is uploaded to further demonstrate the alignment of time spent with allowable ERAP administrative activities. Invoices submitted followed the contract terms, including hours rendered. A sample calendar page was provided and redacted for PII. § 200.338 Restrictions on public access to records. For 9 of 116, or 7.76% of claims tested, the payment was for more than the contracted rate. • PARTIALLY AGREE: overpayment of $37 • DISAGREE: see Bonus justification below. • 4.2.22 addendum with $29.60/hr rate • 4.2.22 addendum with $29.60/hr • 4.2.22 addendum with $36/hr rate • 4.2.22 addendum with $31.25/hr rate • 4.2.22 addendum with $29.60/hr rate • 4.2.22 addendum with $38/hr rate • 4.2.22 addendum with $28/hr rate Also see CCP Contractor Increases April, 2022 spreadsheet Attachments OneDrive_1_4-22-2025 OneDrive_3_4-22-2025- Contracts For 23 of 116, or 9.83% of claims tested, the subrecipient was unable to provide a contract for the period paid. • The Independent contractors each signed contracts in 2021 which laid out specific terms and conditions under which the independent contractors would provide their services and be compensated. Although some of these contracts expired, second contracts and/or addendums were signed by those same independent contractors in 2023. The independent contractors continued to work under the same terms and conditions and continued to be paid the same remuneration in the time period between the expiration of the original contracts and when the new contracts and/or addendums were created and signed. According to 15 O.S. Section 133, an implied contract is on where the existence and terms are not explicitly stated but are inferred from the conduct of the parties. Because the original contracts contained the specific terms regarding services and payment and because these independent contractors continued to operate under those same terms and receive payment even in the interim between signed contracts, this shows that an implied contract existed under Oklahoma law. The original contracts expired in 2021 which was at the height of the Covid- 19 crisis. The entities involved were addressing more urgent matters to assist the people of Oklahoma with the objectives of the program and did not have the bandwidth to draft and sign new agreements when responding to more urgent matters. Therefore, given the surrounding circumstances and the overall intent of the parties, it can be logically deduced that an implied contract existed in the interim periods between any expiration of an original contract and the second contract and/or addendum being signed. For 9 of 116, or 7.76% of claims tested, the contract was not signed by the Executive Director and was not valid. • We partially agree the contracts for three are not currently available with the Executive Director’s signature. • We disagree, fully executed contracts for two are available for review in the attachment OneDrive_3_4-22- 2025. For 22 of 115, or 19.13% of claims tested, the payroll 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 of Oklahoma, but the subrecipient was unable to support the allocation was completed and that 100% of the cost was not charged to the State. • See response to audit finding 2023-028 regarding the 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

VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS As part of the digitization project process, ADSEF seeks to standardize procedures and ensure the organization and proper location of documents within the files. For this Digitalization project we have available matching funds of approximately 7 million dollars IMPLEMENTATION DATE December 2027 RESPONSIBLE PERSON Administration for Socioeconomic Development of the Family (ADSEF, by its Spanish Acronym)

VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS It is recommended, among other things, to establish internal controls that provide certainty, effective monitoring, data validation, and accountability for those employees who execute the reporting processes. To this end, the personnel responsible will be convened and written processes will be issued to expedite the information requests and ensure their rapid submission. This will be in accordance with both state and federal regulations. Once the agreements are finalized, they will be submitted to the auditing firm. IMPLEMENTATION DATE During Fiscal Year 2025-2026. RESPONSIBLE PERSON Administration for Socioeconomic Development of the Family (ADSEF, by its Spanish Acronym)

VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS Review the accounting system to ensure consistency with SF– 425 reporting. Establish a protocol for the review and approval of financial reports. Designate a financial compliance officer to validate reports prior to submission. IMPLEMENTATION DATE During Fiscal Year 2025-2026. RESPONSIBLE PERSON Administration for Families and Children (ADFAN, by the Spanish Acronym)

VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS ADSEF has controls and procedural manuals related to data collection. As part of the digitization project process, ADSEF seeks to standardize procedures and ensure the organization and proper location of documents within the files. Annexes IMPLEMENTATION DATE Up to Date RESPONSIBLE PERSON Administration for Socioeconomic Development of the Family (ADSEF, by its Spanish Acronym) AUDITORS’ COMMENT ADSEF did not provide us with a manual describing the data collection process as requested during the auditing procedures. An unsigned and undated Manual was attached to the Corrective Action Plan. Also, ADSEF was required to provide us with the corresponding participant worksheet appendix and the physical file to corroborate the information included in the report. ADSEF provided us with evidence of the hand-completed forms; however, we were not provided with the physical files to validate the information included in each document. This represents a scope limitation.

VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS It is recommended, among other things, to establish internal controls that provide certainty, effective monitoring, data validation, and accountability for those employees who execute the reporting processes. To this end, the personnel responsible will be convened and written processes will be issued to expedite the information requests and ensure their rapid submission. This will be in accordance with both state and federal regulations. Once the agreements are finalized, they will be submitted to the auditing firm. IMPLEMENTATION DATE During Fiscal Year 2025-2026. RESPONSIBLE PERSON Administration for Socioeconomic Development of the Family (ADSEF, by its Spanish Acronym)

VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS It is recommended, among other things, to establish internal controls that provide certainty, effective monitoring, data validation, and accountability for those employees who execute the reporting processes. To this end, the personnel responsible will be convened and written processes will be issued to expedite the information requests and ensure their rapid submission. This will be in accordance with both state and federal regulations. Once the agreements are finalized, they will be submitted to the auditing firm. IMPLEMENTATION DATE During Fiscal Year 2025-2026. RESPONSIBLE PERSON Administration for Socioeconomic Development of the Family (ADSEF, by its Spanish Acronym)

VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS As part of the digitization project process, ADSEF seeks to standardize procedures and ensure the organization and proper location of documents within the files. For this Digitalization project we have available matching funds of approximately 7 million dollars. IMPLEMENTATION DATE Awaiting System Implementation RESPONSIBLE PERSON Administration for Socioeconomic Development of the Family (ADSEF, by its Spanish Acronym)

VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS In Process Develop an operational procedures manual for each program under Uniform Guidance. Include flow outlining key processes. Assign personnel responsible for each function and establish periodic review mechanisms. IMPLEMENTATION DATE During Fiscal Year 2025-2026. RESPONSIBLE PERSON Administration for Families and Children (ADFAN, by the Spanish Acronym)

VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS It is recommended, among other things, to establish internal controls that provide certainty, effective monitoring, data validation, and accountability for those employees who execute the reporting processes. To this end, the personnel responsible will be convened and written processes will be issued to expedite the information requests and ensure their rapid submission. This will be in accordance with both state and federal regulations. IMPLEMENTATION DATE During Fiscal Year 2025-2026. RESPONSIBLE PERSON Administration for Socioeconomic Development of the Family (ADSEF, by its Spanish Acronym)

VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS It is recommended, among other things, to establish internal controls that provide certainty, effective monitoring, data validation, and accountability for those employees who execute the reporting processes. To this end, the personnel responsible will be convened and written processes will be issued to expedite the information requests and ensure their rapid submission. This will be in accordance with both state and federal regulations. Once the agreements are finalized, they will be submitted to the auditing firm. IMPLEMENTATION DATE During Fiscal Year 2025-2026. RESPONSIBLE PERSON Administration for Socioeconomic Development of the Family (ADSEF, by its Spanish Acronym)

VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS It is recommended, among other things, to establish internal controls that provide certainty, effective monitoring, data validation, and accountability for those employees who execute the reporting processes. To this end, the personnel responsible will be convened and written processes will be issued to expedite the information requests and ensure their rapid submission. This will be in accordance with both state and federal regulations. Once the agreements are finalized, they will be submitted to the auditing firm. IMPLEMENTATION DATE During Fiscal Year 2025-2026. RESPONSIBLE PERSON Administration for Socioeconomic Development of the Family (ADSEF, by its Spanish Acronym)

Finding: The Office of Financial Management did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements to ensure Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds were used for only allowable activities. Questioned Costs: Assistance Listing # 21.027 COVID-19 Amount $300,000,000 Status: Corrective action not taken Corrective Action: The Office does not concur with the audit finding. The state of Washington implemented internal controls and created Fund 706 to track the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) expenditures. The state, through legislation, approved the transfer of $300 million from the SLFRF account to various state transportation accounts under the revenue loss provision. The Office reaffirms that all expenditures from the transportation accounts that received the SLFRF funds were used to maintain government services. The State Administrative and Accounting Manual requires all state agencies to establish internal controls over payments for goods and services, including ensuring payments are lawful and for proper purposes, reviewing payments to ensure they are supported, as well as documenting the review of all payments. State agencies continued to follow their established internal controls to ensure expenditures from the transportation accounts were proper and allowable for both non-SLFRF and SLFRF funds. The Office will continue to: • Work with the U.S. Treasury, through the audit resolution and management decision process, to ensure no questioned costs are required to be repaid. • Document all correspondence with the grantor during the audit resolution process. The conditions noted in this finding were previously reported in finding 2022-018. Completion Date: Not applicable Agency Contact: Sara Rupe Deputy Statewide Accounting Director PO Box 43127 Olympia, WA 98504-3127 (360) 974-9252 sara.rupe@ofm.wa.gov

As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: • The Controller’s Office along with the Office of the Vice President of Research configured our accounting system with an automated control that prevents general (non-payroll) expenditures from being charged to the grant after the period of performance end date, one root cause of cost transfers. • For payroll expenditures, post-award specialists updated grant labor costing allocations in our accounting system to contain an end date that coincides with the period of performance end date. This change in Workday restricts labor costs from being charged after the period of performance. The University’s post-award specialist review grant labor costing allocations on a periodic basis. • With collaboration between the payroll department, the Controller’s Office and post-award specialists, before each payroll is processed within the accounting system, grants that have ended are identified and the payroll expenditures are removed from the feed and not charged to the grant. • On-going training on data certification by post-award grant managers has improved grant-expenditure compliance and data accuracy. In addition, the Controller’s Office implemented a process in which post-award grant managers are now reviewing grant level budget versus actual reporting on a periodic basis to identify errors timely (i.e. before the 90 day threshold). Additionally, the University’s Workday team is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional expense approvals, specifically for labor, before those expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy. Tara Thomason, Controller and Assistance Vice President, is responsible for addressing the above items by June 2024.

2022-005 Significant Deficiency in Controls over Compliance: Administrative Requirements of Uniform Guidance-Administrative Policies The schools have documented their administrative policies effective 3/1/2023.

FINDING 2022-004 Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: George ann Ewald, Director of Finance & HR Contact Phone Number: (574) 277-4452 Views of Responsible Official: We concur with the finding. Description of Corrective Action Plan: The Director of Finance & HR will expand Fund 8700 to include adding line items for all allowable reimbursement costs associated with each firefighter position covered by the 2019 Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) federal grant. The Director of Finance & HR will ensure that all funds used to compensate each covered firefighter position will be paid entirely out of Fund 8700, only. This action will result in a negative value for Fund 8700 until which time the fund is reimbursed the allowable costs under the provisions of the federal grant. The Director of Finance & HR will generate a report for each reimbursement request, which will be limited to include only the payroll dates of the period for which the request is being submitted. The Fire Chief will review and confirm that all associated costs have been withdrawn from Fund 8700. The Fire Chief will then direct the Assistant Fire Chief to complete the reimbursement request via the FEMA GO website. Once the reimbursement request has been submitted, the Assistant Fire Chief will print the completed reimbursement request documents and obtain signatures from each of the following individuals: 1. Prepared By: (NAME), Director of Finance & HR 2. Reviewed & Approved By: (NAME), Fire Chief 3. Submitted By: (NAME), Assistant Fire Chief Anticipated Completion Date: ? Implementation: June 2023

Compliance requirement ? Allowed Cost /Cost Principle Institutional Comments on Findings and Recommendations: 1. The institution does not concur with the auditor finding because the referenced transaction was below the "Micro-purchase" threshold and does not require a quotation. The FAR increase the "Micro-purchase" threshold for natural disasters and national emergencies, among others. The invoice amount of $5899 was a continuation of an initial project under this contractor which have the unique security passwords, IT protocols and other IT requirements for the uniform implementation of intelligent classrooms for remote distance education. Accordingly, the institution does not request a quote. The institution followed the referenced guidelines in the determining the allowability of costs. Additionally, an external consultant reviewed the transaction and costs prior to request reimbursement. The 2 CFR Part 200, Appendix XI Compliance Supplement guide, issued April 2022, makes referenced to the FAQ's and Other Guidance containing information pertinent to the compliance requirements described in the document and encouraged auditor to regularly check the HERF Websites for updated FAQ's and other pertinent guidance and reporting information. The institution followed those referenced FAQ's and guidelines, among other sound administration practices, in the use of the grants. The referenced Compliance Supplemental, under "Activities Allowed or Unallowed" states: "Institutions must demonstrate that costs incurred are allowable under the relevant statutory provision and consistent with the purpose of the ESF "to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus"". The institution used $5,899 paid to the guidelines as indicated to contractor, to continue enhancing the distance learning program in preventing the spread and contamination of the coronavirus among professors and students by enabling remote distance education. The direct charges for this transaction to the federal award was for allowable costs under the instructions, federal grant and FAQs guidelines as indicated. 2. The institution does not concur with the auditor finding because of what is discussed in No 1 above. In the two cases mentioned, the cost quote may not agree with the invoice, because of some additional services requested, but the amount of the invoice was the correct amount paid and actual cost used to draw the HEERF funds. These invoices were for furniture and partitions divisions, to enable the remote distance education, avoiding physical contact of students and professors, to prevent, prepare for and respond to the COVID-19 emergency. Once again, these incurred and direct charges to the federal award complied with the HEERF objectives and were allowable costs under the authorized uses in the grant award and HEERF guidelines. 3. The institution does not concur with the auditor finding. The referenced three cases may not have a specific or expressed "acknowledgement of receipt" statement, but the acknowledgement was validated by UTC management and with the signatures when the check was issued. Nevertheless, the costs incurred in these invoices were authorized and incompliance with HEERF program and ESF purpose. The direct charges for this transaction to the federal award was for allowable costs under the instructions, federal grant and FAQs guidelines as indicated. 4. Institution does not, firmly, concurs with the auditor finding. This should not even be a finding because the institution strictly followed the FAQs published on March 19, 2021 to calculate the lost revenue and using a comparison between FY-20 and FY 21. That guideline described "Loss of Revenue" as "...those revenues and institution of higher education otherwise expected but were reduced or eliminated as a result of the novel coronavirus 2910 (COVID-2019) pandemic. As such, lost revenues can only be estimated". Nerveless, the result would have been relatively the same if we have use FY21 audited financials. Given the many factors and complexities of the unusual process, the institution followed a conservative approach and reduced those revenue items that have an increase between fiscal year from those with a loss of revenue. Therefore, the institution netted the potential amount of lost revenue to claim. Accordingly, the net amount resulted in $280,929.84. The potential loss of revenue amount could be greater but the institution decided to only claim the referenced estimated amount. These calculations and analysis were further discussed and evaluated by an officer of the Department of Education, with no recommendation on claiming a higher amount because the amount claimed was less than the estimated potential. The guideline indicates: "Reimbursement for lost revenue is allowable for the Institutional Portion program...". The institution claimed this loss of revenue amount from their institutional portion, complying with the HEERF guidelines and the authorized use of the funds. The direct charges for this transaction to the federal award was for allowable costs under the instructions, federal grant and FAQs guidelines as indicated. a. The institution used unaudited figures for FY21 because the audited financial statements were not completed at the time of the calculation. The institution revised the calculations with the audited financial statements, and the results were the same and the claimed estimated amount did not changed. Once again and in accordance with the guidelines, we were estimating the lost revenue with the data available at the moment. b. The institution followed the recommended HEERF guidelines for this complex and novel exercise. The institution considered under the analysis; those revenues otherwise expected but that were reduced as a result of the novel COVID-2019. The contributions as "Support Revenue" from related entities, which were a significant source of revenue for the institution, was not claimed as loss of revenue. The institution specifically claimed those lost revenue items as authorized in the guidelines. Therefore, once again, the UTC was in compliant with the lost revenue referenced guidelines. The direct charges for this transaction to the federal award was for allowable costs under the instructions, federal grant and FAQs guidelines as indicated. c. As explained above, the institution followed a conservative approach and only claimed a net amount of all lost revenue items. The institution only claimed those estimated revenue items, as authorized in the guideline, that suffer a loss between the two fiscal years considered in the evaluation. This was further evaluated by an officer of the DOE. As the guidelines described, since the lost revenues can only be estimated, the institution correctly, analyzed and calculated the best conservative/reasonable estimate of loss revenue with the available data at the moment. Even if we used the auditors' recommended items, the results would have been the same and no revenue item was claim out of the authorized or allowable costs from the guidelines. The direct charges for this transaction to the federal award was for allowable costs under the instructions, federal grant and FAQs guidelines as indicated. Actions Taken or Planned: The institution understands that the incurred and direct charges to the federal award complied with the HEERF objectives and were allowable costs under the authorized uses in the grant award and HEERF guidelines and no further was required.

#2022-002: Material Weakness in Controls over Compliance: Administrative Requirements of Uniform Guidance -Administrative Policies Recommendations: Grand Rapids Christian Schools should consider the following written policy additions or updates: ? Financial Management (2 CFR 200.302) The financial management policy should include records documenting compliance, and the tracking of funds to determine that expenditures are in accordance with the terms and conditions of the federal awards. The financial management and reporting system must provide the following : ? Identification - Title of the award, CFDA number ? Complete disclosure of accurate and current financial results of each federal award ? Source and application of funds for federal award activity ? Record retention and access - define the time period for which records must be kept (can vary by grant agreement), and who has the ability access the records (?200.333 - ?200.337) ? Written procedure to implement cash management requirements (see below) ? Written procedures for determining the allowability of costs (see below) ? Cash Management (2 CFR 200.305) A written policy is required by Uniform Guidance detailing the Organization's procedures to minimize the time that elapses between draw and expenditure of federal dollars. ? Allowable Costs (2 CFR 200.302(b)(7)) The Organization must have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with Subpart E - Cost Principles of Uniform Guidance and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. This includes the determination of allowable costs and the review of this determination. The standard assumes policies and procedures are in place for disbursements, and the allowable cost policy will demonstrate how the Organization ensures compliance. The criteria for costs to be considered allowable are documented within 2 CFR 200.403. ? Procurement Standards (2 CFR 200.317 - 200.326) The Organization must have a written policy that promotes full and open vendor competition, conflict of interest policies should cover employees as well as the organization, and general purchase requirements with specific thresholds as set forth by the Uniform Guidance. There are five allowable procurement methods as described in ?200.320, depending upon the dollar value of the purchase or contract. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: ? Grand Rapids Christian Schools follows procurement and record retention standards provided by the USDA. ? GRCS does not have actual written policies and procedures for Financial Management, Cash Management, Allowable Costs, and Procurement Standards, but do have practices in place to follow USDA guidelines. In the case of cash management, the only location that takes cash is GRCHS. In that instance, along with Meal Magic, cash registers are zeroed out and balanced to Meal Magic and cash deposits are made daily. ? GRCS Business Office will work with the Food Service Director to begin formulating written policies and procedures specific to Grand Rapids Christian Schools. GRCS will utilize the resources from Uniform Guidance and Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to develop policies that are compliant with those requirements prior to June 30, 2023.

Finding: The Office of Financial Management did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements to ensure Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds were used only for allowable activities. Questioned Costs: Assistance Listing # 21.027 COVID-19 Amount $300,000,000 Status: Corrective action not taken Corrective Action: The Office does not concur with the audit finding. The state of Washington created a separate fund to track the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (CSLFRF) expenditures. The state, through legislation, approved the transfer from the CSLFRF account to various state transportation accounts. The Office reaffirms that all expenditures from the transportation accounts that received the CSLFRF funds were used to maintain government services. The State Administrative and Accounting Manual requires all state agencies to establish internal controls over payments for goods and services, including ensuring payments are lawful and for proper purposes, reviewing payments to ensure they are supported, as well as documenting the review of all payments. State agencies continued to follow their established internal controls to ensure expenditures from the transportation accounts were proper and allowable for both non-CSLFRF and CSLFRF funds. The Office will continue to: ? Work with the U.S. Treasury through upcoming desk audits to ensure no questioned costs are required to be repaid. ? Document all correspondence with the grantor during the audit resolution process. Completion Date: Not applicable Agency Contact: Brian Tinney Statewide Accounting Director PO Box 43127 Olympia, WA 98504-3127 (564) 999-1781 brian.tinney@ofm.wa.gov

The Office of Vice President of Research and the Controller?s Office will collaborate to ensure effort verification reports are returned no later than 30 calendar days after they have been distributed, including escalating noncompliance to appropriate University leadership. These improvements are expected to be completed by December 2023. The Controller?s Office will review its indirect costs configurations within the grants module of Workday to ensure the automated calculation of indirect costs is correct. In addition, the Sponsored Programs Accounting team will manually reconcile indirect costs periodically at the grant level. These improvements are expected to be completed by December 2023. The University continues to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciles its grants. However, to limit cost transfers in the future, the Office of Vice President of Research and the Controller?s Office worked with the University?s Workday Finance team to configure its accounting system with an automated control that prevents general (non-payroll) expenditures from being charged to the grant after the period of performance end date, one root cause of cost transfers. In addition, for payroll expenditures, the above teams updated grant labor costing allocations in its accounting system to contain an end date that coincides with the period of performance end date which restricts labor costs from being charged after the period of performance. The post award specialists will begin reviewing the labor costing allocations on a periodic basis. Also implemented in fiscal year 2023, before each payroll is processed by the Director of Payroll within the accounting system, grants that have ended are identified by the Assistant Controller and Director of Sponsored Program Accounting and the payroll expenditures are removed from the feed and not charged to the grant. The University has also hired individuals whose sole responsibility is to review general (non-payroll) expenditures charged to grants. Further, the University?s post award specialists are continually trained on the importance of allowed and unallowed expenditures and are now reviewing grant level budget versus actual reporting on a periodic basis to identify noncompliance. Tara Thomason, Controller and Assistance Vice President, is responsible for addressing the above items by December 2023.