Corrective Action Plans

A. OBJECTION On December 29, 2025, following LPSB’s submission of its Response to the Draft Findings of Kolder, Slaven, and Company, LLC (“KS&C”) relating to its 2024-2025 Annual Audit, LPSB received two additional findings characterized as Disclaimers of Opinion. The issuance of these post-response Disclaimers of Opinion regarding the findings highlights KS&C’s apparent lack of objectivity and its failure to adhere to generally accepted government auditing standards in conducting the 24-25 audit. A Disclaimer of Opinion “is expressed when the auditor is unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence on which to base the opinion, and the auditor concludes that the possible effects on the financial statements of undetected misstatements, if any, could be both material and pervasive.”1 According to LLA, “a local auditee that provides for an audit report with a disclaimer of opinion” is regarded as being in noncompliance with its reporting requirements to LLA under the audit law (Louisiana Revised Statute 24:513). LLA further expects the CPA to include in such a report a finding that provides a full explanation for the disclaimer of opinion.2 The two supplemental responses provided are, however, substantially lacking the “full explanation” mandated by the Legislative Auditors for the serious allegations being presented by KS&C. As with its other findings, these recent findings fail to cite any specific conditions present during the audit period that would have precluded KS&C from forming a conclusion. Therefore, as with the original findings, LPSB, on January 6, 2026, again requested that KS&C provide supporting evidence for its claim that it was unable to obtain “evidence regarding significant financial statement balances, transactions, and disclosures.” KS&C responded by stating that these new findings were based on Finding 16 - Invoices Paid Without Sufficient Supporting Detail (IC & C), Finding 26 - Management Override of Established Internal Controls (IC), Finding 31 - Unsupported Experience-Based Pay Increases (IC), and other undisclosed matters. Notably, none of these specific findings are instances where KS&C was prevented from forming a conclusion. To the contrary, the original findings identified by KS&C reflect otherwise. For instance, in Finding 16, KS&C notes it “tested 539 and identified 213 in which invoices were paid without sufficient documentation.” Despite KS&C’s assertions, LPSB has at no point failed to provide information to KS&C upon request (see Corrective Action sections below). In fact, KS&C issued 33 Findings, each purportedly substantiated by documentation. As stated in LPSB’s Response, a request was made by LPSB for KS&C to produce the referenced specific supporting documentation. However, KS&C declined to provide the documentation. Auditing standards stipulate: “Auditors should document supervisory review, before the report release date, of the evidence that supports the findings and conclusions contained in the audit report.”3 They further require: “Auditors should document any departures from the GAGAS requirements and the effect on the audit and on the auditors’ conclusions when the audit is not in compliance with applicable GAGAS requirements because of law, regulation, scope limitations, restrictions on access to records, or other issues affecting the audit.”4 Despite LPSB, in its Response and communications prior thereto pointing out erroneous references to the law and facts, KS&C refused to modify its findings. Instead, it introduced these two ambiguous Disclaimers of Opinion, alleging that LPSB failed to provide necessary information for KS&C to reach a conclusion. However, a cursory review of its original findings clearly reflect that KS&C did reach conclusions, which they assert were based upon conditions found during their investigation. Which is it? Are KS&C’s findings supported or not? KS&C’s ex post Disclaimers of Opinion not only misrepresent LPSB’s cooperation and full disclosure of information, but they are also predicated upon the unfounded assertion that LPSB’s “representations, including written representations required under auditing standards, could not be relied upon due to concerns regarding the reliability of management representations.” After 33 years of engagement with LPSB audits, KS&C has now made the unwarranted claim that LPSB’s representations are unreliable, without pointing to a specific instance of unreliability. Ironically, it is the auditor’s own representations that are demonstrated to be unreliable, as evidenced by the submission of these two vague and contradictory Disclaimers of Opinion. “[A] CPA cannot enter into the engagement with a pre-conceived notion that the local auditee is doing everything wrong. Going into an engagement with [this] attitude impairs the independence of the CPA firm.” The two findings, submitted after LPSB responded to its original findings, do not meet the standards set forth in the Louisiana Governmental Audit Guide. They contradict the original findings, misrepresent LPSB’s cooperation throughout the audit, insert slanderous statements as to the reliability of LPSB’s representations, and fail to provide a full explanation for the disclaimer of opinion. KS&C should remove these findings from its report. 1 LGAG 400-1160, Types of Auditor’s Opinions 2 LGAG 400-1160, Types of Auditor’s Opinions 3 GAO-24, Sections 6.31 (emphasis added) 4 GAO-24, Sections 6.32 B. CORRECTIVE ACTION Prior to the financial audit, Lafayette Parish School Board (LPSB) staff prepared reports and documentation for at least 185 requests that were made by the external auditors. These requests consisted of, but were not limited to, all General Ledger data and information on all Major and Non Major Funds (i.e. General Fund, Construction Funds, Debt Service Funds, and Special Revenue funds), worksheets, personnel records, copies of checks, copies of invoices, grant reimbursement requests, expenditure detail reports, capital asset data and reports, accounts payable data and reports, the type of computer equipment used (including the software and operating systems), construction related documents, copies of contracts, insurance invoices, schedules of judgments and agreements, check registers, calendars, securities pledged, accounts payable details, financial statements, schedule of construction contracts, retirement reports, listing of new hires, purchase orders, check requests, financial reconciliations, sales tax reports and documents, other insurance related documents, insurance policies, monitoring reports, AFR report, arbitrage documentation, copies of deposits receipts, copies of budgets, outstanding checks, revenue reports, expenditure reports, and balance sheet reports. Under the Department of Education agreed upon procedures audit, LPSB staff provided Class size data, PEP data and a user guide. Under the Statewide Agreed Upon procedure, LPSB staff provided proof of required trainings such as ethics, bond insurance policies, list of all bank accounts, a listing of employees, officials employed during the year, and a list of deposit and collection sites. Other requests from our external auditors may come via email throughout the audit process and responses are provided likewise. All of the items listed above, and other items that were not listed above, are routinely provided each year. For several decades this has been the standard and nothing has changed in terms of provided supporting documentation within this particular audit. Internal controls have been in place for many decades. The external auditors have been reviewing, studying and auditing our internal controls for three decades. Over the years, LPSB internal controls have been adjusted, strengthened or heighten to prevent operational deficiencies, fraud and/or non-compliance of which the auditors have contributed to its advancement. Substantially, there has been no change to internal controls as they are in place for a reason. Systematically, internal controls are planted and executed in various areas and departments for various functions and/or lawful requirements. The biggest threats to any organization are misappropriation or improper disbursement of funds. Neither have occurred, because internal controls such as the utilization of electronic requisitions and check request processes were in place to ensure goods and services were precured properly and vendor payments were substantiated. LPSB stands by its management representations that have been provided to the auditors. We acknowledge our responsibility for the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal controls relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. In addition to supporting documentation, the external auditors had complete access to our financial software to ascertain the completeness and accuracy of our financial records.

A. OBJECTION On December 29, 2025, following LPSB’s submission of its Response to the Draft Findings of Kolder, Slaven, and Company, LLC (“KS&C”) relating to its 2024-2025 Annual Audit, LPSB received two additional findings characterized as Disclaimers of Opinion. The issuance of these post-response Disclaimers of Opinion regarding the findings highlights KS&C’s apparent lack of objectivity and its failure to adhere to generally accepted government auditing standards in conducting the 24-25 audit. A Disclaimer of Opinion “is expressed when the auditor is unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence on which to base the opinion, and the auditor concludes that the possible effects on the financial statements of undetected misstatements, if any, could be both material and pervasive.”1 According to LLA, “a local auditee that provides for an audit report with a disclaimer of opinion” is regarded as being in noncompliance with its reporting requirements to LLA under the audit law (Louisiana Revised Statute 24:513). LLA further expects the CPA to include in such a report a finding that provides a full explanation for the disclaimer of opinion.2 The two supplemental responses provided are, however, substantially lacking the “full explanation” mandated by the Legislative Auditors for the serious allegations being presented by KS&C. As with its other findings, these recent findings fail to cite any specific conditions present during the audit period that would have precluded KS&C from forming a conclusion. Therefore, as with the original findings, LPSB, on January 6, 2026, again requested that KS&C provide supporting evidence for its claim that it was unable to obtain “evidence regarding significant financial statement balances, transactions, and disclosures.” KS&C responded by stating that these new findings were based on Finding 16 - Invoices Paid Without Sufficient Supporting Detail (IC & C), Finding 26 - Management Override of Established Internal Controls (IC), Finding 31 - Unsupported Experience-Based Pay Increases (IC), and other undisclosed matters. Notably, none of these specific findings are instances where KS&C was prevented from forming a conclusion. To the contrary, the original findings identified by KS&C reflect otherwise. For instance, in Finding 16, KS&C notes it “tested 539 and identified 213 in which invoices were paid without sufficient documentation.” Despite KS&C’s assertions, LPSB has at no point failed to provide information to KS&C upon request (see Corrective Action sections below). In fact, KS&C issued 33 Findings, each purportedly substantiated by documentation. As stated in LPSB’s Response, a request was made by LPSB for KS&C to produce the referenced specific supporting documentation. However, KS&C declined to provide the documentation. Auditing standards stipulate: “Auditors should document supervisory review, before the report release date, of the evidence that supports the findings and conclusions contained in the audit report.”3 They further require: “Auditors should document any departures from the GAGAS requirements and the effect on the audit and on the auditors’ conclusions when the audit is not in compliance with applicable GAGAS requirements because of law, regulation, scope limitations, restrictions on access to records, or other issues affecting the audit.”4 Despite LPSB, in its Response and communications prior thereto pointing out erroneous references to the law and facts, KS&C refused to modify its findings. Instead, it introduced these two ambiguous Disclaimers of Opinion, alleging that LPSB failed to provide necessary information for KS&C to reach a conclusion. However, a cursory review of its original findings clearly reflect that KS&C did reach conclusions, which they assert were based upon conditions found during their investigation. Which is it? Are KS&C’s findings supported or not? KS&C’s ex post Disclaimers of Opinion not only misrepresent LPSB’s cooperation and full disclosure of information, but they are also predicated upon the unfounded assertion that LPSB’s “representations, including written representations required under auditing standards, could not be relied upon due to concerns regarding the reliability of management representations.” After 33 years of engagement with LPSB audits, KS&C has now made the unwarranted claim that LPSB’s representations are unreliable, without pointing to a specific instance of unreliability. Ironically, it is the auditor’s own representations that are demonstrated to be unreliable, as evidenced by the submission of these two vague and contradictory Disclaimers of Opinion. “[A] CPA cannot enter into the engagement with a pre-conceived notion that the local auditee is doing everything wrong. Going into an engagement with [this] attitude impairs the independence of the CPA firm.” The two findings, submitted after LPSB responded to its original findings, do not meet the standards set forth in the Louisiana Governmental Audit Guide. They contradict the original findings, misrepresent LPSB’s cooperation throughout the audit, insert slanderous statements as to the reliability of LPSB’s representations, and fail to provide a full explanation for the disclaimer of opinion. KS&C should remove these findings from its report. 1 LGAG 400-1160, Types of Auditor’s Opinions 2 LGAG 400-1160, Types of Auditor’s Opinions 3 GAO-24, Sections 6.31 (emphasis added) 4 GAO-24, Sections 6.32 B. CORRECTIVE ACTION Prior to the financial audit, Lafayette Parish School Board (LPSB) staff prepared reports and documentation for at least 185 requests that were made by the external auditors. These requests consisted of, but were not limited to, all General Ledger data and information on all Major and Non Major Funds (i.e. General Fund, Construction Funds, Debt Service Funds, and Special Revenue funds), worksheets, personnel records, copies of checks, copies of invoices, grant reimbursement requests, expenditure detail reports, capital asset data and reports, accounts payable data and reports, the type of computer equipment used (including the software and operating systems), construction related documents, copies of contracts, insurance invoices, schedules of judgments and agreements, check registers, calendars, securities pledged, accounts payable details, financial statements, schedule of construction contracts, retirement reports, listing of new hires, purchase orders, check requests, financial reconciliations, sales tax reports and documents, other insurance related documents, insurance policies, monitoring reports, AFR report, arbitrage documentation, copies of deposits receipts, copies of budgets, outstanding checks, revenue reports, expenditure reports, and balance sheet reports. Under the Department of Education agreed upon procedures audit, LPSB staff provided Class size data, PEP data and a user guide. Under the Statewide Agreed Upon procedure, LPSB staff provided proof of required trainings such as ethics, bond insurance policies, list of all bank accounts, a listing of employees, officials employed during the year, and a list of deposit and collection sites. Other requests from our external auditors may come via email throughout the audit process and responses are provided likewise. All of the items listed above, and other items that were not listed above, are routinely provided each year. For several decades this has been the standard and nothing has changed in terms of provided supporting documentation within this particular audit. Internal controls have been in place for many decades. The external auditors have been reviewing, studying and auditing our internal controls for three decades. Over the years, LPSB internal controls have been adjusted, strengthened or heighten to prevent operational deficiencies, fraud and/or non-compliance of which the auditors have contributed to its advancement. Substantially, there has been no change to internal controls as they are in place for a reason. Systematically, internal controls are planted and executed in various areas and departments for various functions and/or lawful requirements. The biggest threats to any organization are misappropriation or improper disbursement of funds. Neither have occurred, because internal controls such as the utilization of electronic requisitions and check request processes were in place to ensure goods and services were precured properly and vendor payments were substantiated. LPSB stands by its management representations that have been provided to the auditors. We acknowledge our responsibility for the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal controls relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. In addition to supporting documentation, the external auditors had complete access to our financial software to ascertain the completeness and accuracy of our financial records.

Ignacio School District has already taken steps in changing the overall process of managing our Federal Award grants and overall year-end closing entries. The district will be working closely with our new auditors to ensure that Single Audits are completed annually moving forward. Our district has implemented scheduled monthly Requests For Funds and budget reviews for each grant to confirm that the grants are being spent according to their approved applications. The Superintendent and Finance Director meet to review the overall process to ensure grant compliance. This includes, but is not limited to assuring that the district charges a de minimis indirect cost rate and submitting End of Year reports to CDE. The district has assigned responsibility of Federal Grant oversight to new personnel. To assure a segregation of duties, there are three district office personnel involved in the management and oversight of the grants. The district has also been trained on proper closing entry procedures for all year-end closing entries and year-end Annual Financial Reporting of grants.

Program: AL 84.010 – Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies – Subrecipient Monitoring Corrective Action Plan: The Agency will strengthen both its fiscal monitoring and Single Audit tracking processes to ensure full compliance with 2 CFR §200.332 and §200.501. The Agency will update its fiscal monitoring procedures to ensure timely, well documented, and risk responsive reviews. Key actions include: • Updating the fiscal monitoring SOP to require complete documentation of all procedures performed, including use of the fiscal monitoring worksheet. • Implementing a monitoring calendar with automated reminders to ensure subrecipients are reviewed within the three year cycle and that higher risk entities receive additional attention. • Requiring supervisory review of all monitoring files to confirm completeness and adequacy. • Strengthening documentation standards so that all items reviewed and conclusions reached are clearly recorded. • Providing refresher training to staff on federal cost principles and monitoring expectations. • Introducing standardized naming conventions and consistent terminology aligned with 2 CFR Part 200 to ensure clarity, uniformity, and ease of review across all monitoring files. This includes consistent labeling of subprograms, transaction samples, supporting documentation, and references to applicable regulatory requirements. The Agency will reinforce its Single Audit tracking and verification procedures to ensure accurate identification and documentation of audit requirements. Key actions include: • Creating a standardized Single Audit tracking log capturing fiscal year end, total federal expenditures, audit requirement status, and follow up actions. • Revising SOPs to require documented verification when a subrecipient exceeds the $1,000,000 threshold but reports that no Single Audit is required. • Implementing system alerts to flag subrecipients approaching or exceeding the audit threshold. • Ensuring timely review and documentation of all submitted Single Audits, including any findings and resolutions. • Providing staff training on Single Audit requirements and updated procedures. These actions will strengthen internal controls, improve documentation, and ensure consistent compliance with federal subrecipient monitoring and audit requirements. Contact: Victoria Katzberg, Director of Grants Compliance Anticipated Completion Date: 6/30/2026

Department will strengthen controls to ensure that the required award information is provided, once available. Certain information such as Federal Award Identification Number and Federal Transit Administration and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration award date are not available at the time of contracting CDOT is working on a process to provide this information, once it is available in a publicly available format on CDOT’s website or on a subrecipient facing grant management site. We will add a note to the contract explaining where the information will be posted on our site when it becomes available. The Department will also identify staff requiring additional training on classification and coding for contractors vs. subrecipients.

Finding 2025-003 Program: Grants to States for Medicaid Assistance Listing No.: 93.778 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Award Year: FY 2024 – 2025 Compliance Requirement: Consistent with the requirements of the subaward agreement, the University is required to submit compliance reporting to the grantor annually beginning in the year the funds were received. University’s Response: The University was not provided with the required compliance reporting templates at the time the subaward was issued. As a result, the University was unable to submit the required reports during the applicable reporting period. The grantor did not request submission of the reports during this time. Upon becoming aware of the reporting requirement during the Single Audit process, the University requested the appropriate templates and reporting guidance from the grantor. The templates were subsequently provided, and the University is continuing to work with the grantor to ensure accurate completion and submission of the required compliance reporting. The University confirms that grant funds were used in accordance with the terms and allowable activities of the subaward agreement. Corrective Action Plan: The University will continue to seek clarification and guidance from the grantor regarding required compliance reporting and the appropriate format for submission. If sufficient guidance is not provided, the University will submit the required compliance reporting to the best of its ability based on available information, understanding that the submission may be subject to review or revision by the grantor. No additional corrective action is planned at this time. The University will continue to work with the grantor to address reporting requirements as information becomes available. Name of the responsible person: Brian Shollenberger, Vice President for Financial Affairs and University Development Anticipated completion date: May 31, 2026

Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management acknowledges the material weakness identified regarding the lack of sufficient appropriate audit evidence to support compliance with federal program requirements for the Special Education Cluster (IDEA) and the Child Nutrition Cluster. We recognize that the inability to provide certain customary accounting records and supporting documentation resulted in a disclaimer of opinion on the District’s compliance. We take this finding seriously and are committed to strengthening our internal controls and recordkeeping practices. To address this issue, management has implemented the following corrective actions: 1. Enhanced Recordkeeping Procedures: We have established and communicated clear procedures to ensure that all financial transactions and program activities are properly documented and that supporting records are maintained in accordance with federal and state requirements. Management is committed to maintaining the integrity of our financial reporting and compliance with all applicable federal program requirements. We believe these corrective actions will address the material weakness and prevent recurrence in future periods. 2. Staff Training: Relevant staff have received additional training on documentation standards and compliance requirements for federal programs to ensure understanding and consistent application of these procedures. 3. Periodic Internal Reviews: Management will conduct periodic internal reviews to verify that records are being maintained appropriately and are readily available for audit purposes. 4. Ongoing Monitoring: We will continue to monitor compliance with these procedures and make improvements as necessary to ensure that all required documentation is available for future audits.

TOFMHS concurs with the finding. The agency retained new auditors for the June 30,2024 fiscal year, subsequent to the due date for submission of the data collection reports. Corrective Action to be Taken: The Agency will take all reasonable measures to work with the new auditors to complete the audit process and submit the data collection report within the required time period. Responsible Person: Fiscal Officer/Program Director Completion Date: January 1, 2025

Finding 2024-003: Significant Deficiency and Noncompliance over Procurement, Suspension, and Debarment Responsible Official’s Response and Corrective Action Plan We concur with the finding. The Foundation has an informal process of reviewing vendors and determining if they have been suspended or debarred. However, there is not a formal process where proper documentation such as screenshots of the search are saved. Due to the transition in the accounting department, we were not aware of these specific criteria at the time. We were notified of these requirements after the end of fiscal year 2024. To address these issues, a comprehensive process was implemented during fiscal year 2025 to ensure proper documentation and compliance with procurement regulations. This process will include: 1. Ensuring that all sole source vendor selections are properly documented and justified. 2. Verifying and maintaining records that confirm vendors are not debarred or suspended from doing business with the Federal Government before entering into contractual agreements. We are committed to improving our procedures and ensuring compliance with all applicable regulations moving forward. Planned Implementation Date of Corrective Action Plan June 2025 Person Responsible for Corrective Action Plan Natésha Johnson, Director of Finance and Administration Dr. Felecia Nave, President and Chief Executive Officer Luwanda Jenkins, Vice President of Partnerships and External Relation

State of Missouri Single Audit Corrective Action Plan Year Ended June 30, 2024 State Agency: Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) Audit Finding Number: 2024-009 - CACFP Subrecipient Monitoring Name of the contact person responsible for corrective action: Sarah Walker, Bureau Chief Anticipated completion date for corrective action: Corrective action planned is as follows: The agency does not agree with the audit findings and therefore no corrective action is required. Explanation and specific reasons are as follows: DHSS disagrees with this finding. While the USDA partially sustained the previous finding in the FY2023 SWSA, the corrective action plan and supporting documentation submitted by DHSS was accepted by USDA and deemed adequate. On April 17, 2025, the USDA recommended final action to close the FY2023 audit finding.

THE IDAHO COALITION WILL IMPLEMENT STRENGTHENED INTERNAL CONTROLS OVER THE ALLOCATION OF NON-PAYROLL EXPENSES TO FEDERAL PROGRAMS, CONSISTENT WITH 2 C.F.R. PART 200 AND THE DOJ GRANTS FINANCIAL GUIDE. SPECIFICALLY, THE ORGANIZATION WILL: 1. DOCUMENT ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY: ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN WRITTEN PROCEDURES THAT CLEARLY DESCRIBE THE ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY FOR NON-PAYROLL EXPENSES, ENSURING COSTS ARE 1402 W GROVE STREET BOISE, IDAHO 83702 WWW.IDAHOCOALITION.ORG ALLOWABLE, REASONABLE, AND ALLOCABLE TO EACH FEDERAL AWARD. 2. APPROVAL & REVIEW: REQUIRE CONTEMPORANEOUS REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF ALL NON-PAYROLL ALLOCATION JOURNAL ENTRIES BY THE FINANCE STEWARD (OR DESIGNATED FINANCE STAFF) AND THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. 3. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: MAINTAIN SOURCE DOCUMENTATION (E.G., INVOICES, ALLOCATION SCHEDULES, APPROVAL RECORDS) IN THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH UNIFORM GUIDANCE STANDARDS. 4. QUARTERLY MONITORING: CONDUCT QUARTERLY RECONCILIATIONS OF ALLOCATIONS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL COST PRINCIPLES. 5. TRAINING: PROVIDE TRAINING TO FINANCE STAFF AND MANAGERS ON ALLOWABLE COST REQUIREMENTS UNDER 2 C.F.R. § 200.403–405 AND OVW/HHS AWARD CONDITIONS TO REINFORCE COMPLIANCE.

Finding 2024-052 Refugee and Entrant Assistance State/Replacement Designee Administered Programs, ALN 93.566 - FFATA Reporting Management Views LEO agrees with the finding. Planned Corrective Action The LEO Finance Division updated its FFATA procedure effective March 2025 and has been working to correct the inaccurate FFATA reporting for the Refugee and Entrant Assistance State/Replacement Designee Administered Programs subawards. All of LEO’s open subawards are reported correctly in SAM and LEO completed corrections to the closed subawards in April 2025. Going forward, LEO will ensure that future subawards are reported both accurately and timely in accordance with FFATA requirements. Anticipated Completion Date Completed Responsible Individual(s) Heidi Parker, LEO

The audit for the year ended June 30, 2023 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse due to issues with the UEI numbers not being renewed timely on the Academy's side. The Finance Director is now responsible for the renewals going forward, and this will not be an issue in the future.

RE: Audit Finding-Missing EIV Reports Montpelier Housing Authority Audit Finding Response: The auditor reviewed the finding with me and the following action plan was put in place to ensure that key EIV reports are run on a scheduled basis and appropriate actions are taken: • Policies and procedures surrounding EIV were reviewed. •We implemented the use of a chart to prompt EIV reports within 90 days for new moveins. (see attached chart) •We already monitor EIV monthly and quarterly to ensure that EIV reports are run for all move-ins and re-certifications. This action plan is effective immediately, as of the date of this letter, February 17,2025.

2024-018 Oregon Department of Human Services Strengthen Medicaid fraud hotline reporting mechanismsManagement Response: We agree with this recommendation and will work to develop a more effective public facing referral process.. Anticipated Completion Date: July 31, 2026 Contact person: Jennifer Stallsworth, Chief of Staff, ODHS APD, April Gillette, OHA Medicaid Division, Strategic Operations & Improvement Director

2024-018 Oregon Department of Human Services Strengthen Medicaid fraud hotline reporting mechanismsManagement Response: We agree with this recommendation and will work to develop a more effective public facing referral process.. Anticipated Completion Date: July 31, 2026 Contact person: Jennifer Stallsworth, Chief of Staff, ODHS APD, April Gillette, OHA Medicaid Division, Strategic Operations & Improvement Director

Corrective Action Plan HCAP’s current procedures require the selection of auditors at least every five years. The request for proposal and selection of auditors for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2024 audit caused unexpected complications and delays in completing the audit and ultimately the filing of the single audit report to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse. The single audit for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2024 is expected to be submitted prior to March 28, 2025. The lessons learned during the 2024 audit will contribute to an expeditious and timely 2025 audit. HCAP will work diligently with its audit firm to ensure that future single audit reports are filed timely with the Federal Audit Clearinghouse. Completion Date: Completion date of the CAP is expected to be prior to March 28, 2025. Contact Person Responsible: Lynnelle Hasegawa, Director of Finance.

RE: Audit Finding-Missing EIV Reports Montpelier Housing Authority Audit Finding Response: The auditor reviewed the finding with me and the following action plan was put in place to ensure that key EIV reports are run on a scheduled basis and appropriate actions are taken: • Policies and procedures surrounding EIV were reviewed. •We implemented the use of a chart to prompt EIV reports within 90 days for new moveins. (see attached chart) •We already monitor EIV monthly and quarterly to ensure that EIV reports are run for all move-ins and re-certifications.

Reference Number: 2024-026 Prior Year Finding: 2023-023 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Health and Human Services State Agency: Department of Finance and Management Federal Program: SNAP Cluster Temporary Assistance for Needy Families CCDF Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.551, 10.561, 93.558, 93.575, 93.596 Award Number and Year: 4VT400406 (10/1/2022 – 9/30/2023) 4VT402513 (10/1/2023 – 9/30/2024) 2301VTTANF (10/1/2022 – 9/30/2023) 2401VTTANF (10/1/2023 – 9/30/2024) 2301VTCCDD (10/1/2022 – 9/30/2025) 2401VTCCDD (10/1/2023 – 9/30/2026) Compliance Requirement: Cash Management Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Compliance, Other Matters Recommendation: We recommend that Finance review and enhance its internal controls and procedures over the CMIA Annual Report to ensure that it verifies the correct interest rate is applied and that State and Federal interest liabilities are properly calculated in accordance with 2 CFR section 200.514. Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the finding. Corrective Action Plan: The current available rate at the time of calculation, review, entry, and moving to draft were all accurate to what U.S. Treasury had available at the time. The rate was updated on December 3rd, after our submissions had already been locked via the draft process in the CMIAS portal done on November, 26th. The process was not fully submitted due to issues with the CMIAS portal not allowing us to submit which has been extensively documented via multiple email chains with U.S. Treasury CMIA over the past two years. Finance and Management will take a screenshot of the CMIA interest rate page dated on the review date of the CMIA Annual Report submissions from departments to ensure that we maintain the historical rate posted to the U.S. Treasury CMIA page at the time of review. Additionally, AHS will take their own screenshots of the CMIA Interest Rate page from U.S. Treasury website on the date of their Annual Report Summary submissions for record and to show that the rate from this time was checked and applied to the current year’s program. If during the review, there is any discrepancy between the review screen of the rates and the calculations screenshot of the rates; the calculation spreadsheets will be kicked back to AHS to be updated. Scheduled Completion Date of Corrective Action Plan: November 30, 2025 Contacts for Corrective Action Plan: Jordan Black-Deegan, Statewide Grants Administrator jordan.black-deegan@vermont.gov Sarena Boland, Financial Manager III sarena.boland@vermont.gov

Program: AL 97.036 – Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) – Subrecipient Monitoring Corrective Action Plan: NEMA has implemented a process, effective immediately, to review the information submitted by subrecipient organizations regarding their 2 CFR Single Audit Certification. Responses will be cross-referenced with our own records of Federal funds passed through NEMA to the subrecipient. Any subrecipient responding that it was not required to conduct a single audit will prompt NEMA to validate against payment data. Any subrecipient’s noncompliance will be followed up by NEMA staff. Contact: Erv Portis Anticipated Completion Date: February 11, 2025

Controls will be implemented for future reporting and the School will have the opportunity to correct the reporting errors in the subsequent periods.

To ensure fiscal compliance and operational efficiency, grant activities will undergo enhanced monitoring through the addition of monthly reviews of review revenue and expense recognition, regular comparisons against budget and award terms, and provide targeted training for new grant managers and accounting staff on expenditures to meet grant spend down schedules. This finding relates to one legacy grant.

Controls will be implemented for future reporting and the Organization will have the opportunity to correct the reporting errors in the subsequent periods.

Name of Contact Person: Melanie Imholte Finance Director mimholte@soldotna.org 907-714-1224 Finding 2024-001 Reporting – Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Compliance Corrective Action The City of Soldotna will revise policies and procedures to ensure review and approval of grant reports being submitted. Expected Completion Date: Fiscal Year 2025

The audit for the year ended June 30, 2023 was not submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse due to issues with the UEI numbers not being renewed timely on the Academy’s side. The Finance Director is now responsible for the renewals going forward, and this will not be an ongoing issue in the futur