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.

FINDING 2025 003 — MATERIAL WEAKNESS (INTERNAL CONTROL OVER COMPLIANCE) — GRANT ACCOUNTING AND CLOSE PROCESS AFFECTING MAJOR FEDERAL PROGRAMS — (PROGRAMS: ALN 14.872 AND ALN 97.036) Cross reference: This finding is directly related to Financial Statement Finding 2025 001. Contact Person: Cantrese Wilson Jones, Executive Director Corrective Action Planned: Corrective actions for this compliance finding will be addressed through the same improvements outlined in Finding 2025 001, including: 1. Adoption of a documented monthly and year end closing calendar. 2. Timely reconciliation of all grant related accounts. 3. Enhanced supervisory review and documentation of compliance related reporting, including SEFA preparation. 4. Strengthening internal controls to ensure grant activity is recorded in the proper period. Anticipated Completion Date: June 30, 2026 Management Response: Management concurs with the finding and will implement the corrective measures beginning FY 2026.

Corrective Action Plan: For Benefits Adjudication: Standard procedures for verifying claimant eligibility for unemployment benefits remain in place. Adjudication staff have been reminded to double-check start dates and eligibility documentation to prevent the recurrence of similar errors. For Benefit Payment Control (BPC): The Department remains committed to strengthening accountability and proactively identifying any potential training gaps within the team. To support this effort, the Department has recently implemented monthly random case reviews conducted by supervisors, followed by individualized email feedback to staff to reinforce expectations and provide timely coaching. Additionally, supervisors are now required to track all audits and document follow up actions to ensure consistent monitoring and early identification of any emerging trends. These measures are intended to enhance quality assurance, support staff development, and maintain the high standards expected within the Department. Anticipated Completion Date for Corrective Action: Completed February 2026 Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: For Benefits Adjudication: Name: Traci A. Brown Title: Assistant Deputy Director - Benefits Adjudication Address: 30 East Board Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215 Phone Number: 614-387-3647 E-Mail Address: Traci.Brown@jfs.ohio.gov For Benefit Payment Control (BPC): Name: BJ Knutson-Cruset Title: Bureau Chief Address: 6680 Poe Ave, Dayton, Ohio 45414 Phone Number: 937-264-5742 E-Mail Address: bj.knutson-cruset@jfs.ohio.gov

Regent University agrees with this finding. The University will engage with the National Student Clearinghouse audit support office to further understand the analyst processing timelines to strategize effective submission and error resolution dates to ensure output is captured in the monthly NSC batches. The University will continue to engage the established working group with appropriate Regent stakeholders to review suggested changes made by the NSC to reporting methods, time buffers between reports, reporting frequency, and other “upstream” preventative measures that may be taken to prevent file backlogs. Internally, the University will establish a customized and shared enrollment reporting tracker available to all stakeholders in the working group. This will transparently represent the dates to maintain the 60-day compliance window and allow us to manually intervene where possible. Regent University will implement the plan by June 30, 2026. Name of responsible parties: Elizabeth Bayless (University Registrar) & Tameka Lyons (Senior Associate Registrar)

Finding 2025-002 Reporting Department’s Response: Management agrees with this finding. Corrective Action: This issue arose during the onboarding of students admitted through a teach-out arrangement with a closing institution. Because these students entered under program structures that differed from NUNM’s standard enrollment models, some of the information initially received did not align with NUNM’s financial aid packaging assumptions. In two cases, cost of attendance calculations reflected full-time status when the program design required three-quarter-time treatment. While the situation was limited to a small number of students within a unique population, management recognizes that our internal coordination processes did not sufficiently account for the complexity of the teach-out transition. In particular, clearer confirmation of enrollment status and program structure should have occurred before aid was packaged and originated. Management is strengthening procedures for any future teach-out, transfer, or non-standard admissions cohorts to ensure accurate and compliant packaging from the outset. Going forward, NUNM will implement the following controls: • A standardized handoff process from Admissions to Financial Aid for special populations that documents program structure, term length, and expected enrollment level prior to packaging. • A secondary review requirement for initial aid awards for new program types or cohorts before loans are originated. • Regular cross-functional checkpoints between Admissions and Financial Aid during the setup of non-standard programs. Management views this experience as an opportunity to improve coordination and compliance during periods of institutional transition and is committed to maintaining strong controls over Title IV packaging and cost of attendance calculations. Contact: Jerry Bores Anticipated Completion Date: Immediately

The College implemented additional procedures to allow earlier detection of fraud.

Responsible Person(s): Meredith Lumpkin/J’Noie Parker, Child Care Subsidy Program Manager Corrective Action Planned: 1.) Process Redesign and Standardization: DSS has redefined the redetermination packet to require submission of the application and all required verifications to ensure complete documentation to streamline eligibility review. Updated procedural guidance has been incorporated into the Interim Guidance Manual to clarify verification requirements and documentation standards. A standardized step-by-step resource guide and redetermination flow chart have been developed outlining required actions, decision points, and the importance of reviewing redetermination monitoring reports on a monthly basis to ensure cases do not exceed eligibility periods. 2.) Immediate Remediation: In January, following the initial APA audit, DSS conducted a statewide scope and scale review of all active cases to identify outstanding redeterminations. Through this analysis, DSS identified 88 overdue redeterminations (31 from January 2026 and 57 from periods prior to January 2026). Local departments and appropriate staff were notified individually of the specific cases requiring action and directed to take corrective steps. DSS will review cases at the end of March to ensure action has been taken. Going forward, DSS will direct all local departments to review the monthly system-generated redetermination monitoring report and resolve any cases identified as exceeding the eligibility period. DSS will distribute targeted overdue case lists to Regional Program Consultants (RPCs) and monitor locality progress through centralized tracking to ensure timely eligibility determinations and ongoing CCDF compliance. 3.) Centralized Oversight: DSS will implement a layered oversight process to ensure compliance with required monthly monitoring procedures: -Regional-Level Review: Regional Program Consultants (RPCs) will review redetermination monitoring activity monthly within their assigned localities and direct corrective action as needed to ensure timely processing and case closure when appropriate. -Home Office Verification: DSS Home Office, in collaboration with DOE, will conduct quarterly reviews of regional monitoring activity to verify compliance and provide direction to RPCs where additional corrective action or technical assistance is required. This dual-level oversight structure establishes both ongoing regional monitoring and periodic centralized verification to reduce the risk of recurrence. 4.) Training: Refresher training will be provided to staff at our Benefits Program Conference in April, emphasizing timely processing, required verifications, system documentation standards, and ongoing monitoring responsibilities. Additionally, DSS is collaborating with the Local Training and Development team to initiate the development of a targeted refresher course for tenured staff to reinforce critical requirements, including the redetermination process. Monthly report review, as outlined in bullet two, will inform ongoing training updates to address. 5.) System Control Evaluation: DSS will collaborate with IT to assess potential system enhancements in future releases to strengthen controls related to redetermination due dates, including additional automated functionality or reporting capabilities. DSS will deliver to CCSP leadership, by June 30, 2026, a prioritized list of recommended system enhancements with associated cost estimates for review and consideration. Estimated Completion Date: 6/30/2026

Responsible Person(s): Monique Majeus, Economic Assistance and Employment/TANF Consultant; Regional TANF Practice Consultants Corrective Action Planned: Targeted Staff Training: -Provide refresher training on TANF/VIEW eligibility requirements, case documentation standards, and mandated timelines. -Training will address specific error trends identified during the review. Training Schedule: -February 2, 2026 – Statewide training on preventing duplicate benefit issuance -March 3, 2026 – Statewide training on Child Support Income (Redirection) and Required actions Pertaining to Tasks and Reminders (e.g., child turning 18, VIEW non-compliance) -January 22, 2026 – Broadcast message attached Regional TANF Practice Consultants will conduct ongoing case reviews and deliver targeted training based on errors identified within their respective local agencies. Standardized Case Processing Tools: -Implement updated checklists, job aids, and workflow guides to ensure consistent policy application and reduce avoidable errors. -Initial tool distributed to local agencies on January 7, 2026. Claims Establishment for Overpayments: -Initial request sent to Regional Practice Consultants for distribution to local agencies on January 7, 2026 to begin the claims process. Estimated Completion Date: 3/30/2026

Responsible Person(s): Fernanda Crandol, Chief Financial Officer Corrective Action Planned: DARS’ Finance Division will develop agency-specific payroll policies and procedures governing all critical payroll processes, including payroll reconciliations and payroll certifications. Additionally, the Finance Division will ensure that payroll reconciliations are completed each pay period so that payroll transactions are accurate, complete, and properly reviewed. Estimated Completion Date: 5/31/2026

Corrective Action Planned: Management will enhance internal control processes related to grants to include controls for proper lines of communication with granting agencies to ensure all required reporting requirements are identified and adhered to. Name(s) of Contact Person(s) Responsible for Corrective Action: Veronica Bochain, Director of Finance Anticipated Completion Date: For FY26 procedures have been put in place to maintain a schedule of reporting due dates that are reviewed monthly to ensure timely submissions.

orrective Action Planned: Management will enhance internal control processes related to grants to include controls for proper lines of communication with granting agencies to ensure all required reporting requirements are identified and adhered to. Name(s) of Contact Person(s) Responsible for Corrective Action: Veronica Bochain, Director of Finance Anticipated Completion Date: For FY26 procedures have been put in place to maintain a schedule of reporting due dates that are reviewed monthly to ensure timely submissions.

orrective Action Planned: Management will implement a documentation retention policy to ensure approvals of allocations of time for employees are maintained. Name(s) of Contact Person(s) Responsible for Corrective Action: Veronica Bochain, Director of Finance Anticipated Completion Date: As of July 2025, a process was implemented to record the proper allocations of time for employees; in addition, a form was developed to record any subsequent changes.

The College’s Vice President for Academic Affairs and Dean of the College concurred with the finding identified. The College has revised its policies and procedures as follows: Historically, Student Affairs coded only those students who took a Leave of Absence during the semester (“L”) or withdrew during the semester (“W”). Student Affairs has created a new code (“N”) to track students who inform the college of their intent to withdraw at the end of a given semester. At the end of each semester, Student Affairs provides the Registrar’s Office with a report of all students who informed the college of their intent to unenroll (“L”, “W”, and “N”). Using the report, the Registrar’s Office confirms that all students have been accurately exited with the appropriate exit date and exit reason prior to submitting the final “end of term” report to the National Student Clearinghouse. This new process was implemented beginning in the Fall 2025 semester. The corrective actions will be implemented by Dr. Kristen M. Amick, Registrar. Dr. Amick’s email address is: amickkm@westminster.edu.

Corrective Action/Management Response: Ensuring that Adoption records are maintained accurately with all documented requirements. Changing Practice to include putting documents into the document management system (Traverse) in order to have a copy of required documents in the event originals are lost, or documents are damaged due to flooding (which is what occurred in the basement where documents were housed). Cases that are more than 10 years old are typically going to be more difficult to locate needed items, due to records being maintained differently at that time and requirements were different in what the Department was required to maintain in an Adoption file. Proposed Completion Date: June 30, 2026 checking monthly to ensure paper files are scanned into Traverse.

Criteria or Specific Requirement: Nonfederal entities other than states, including those operating federal programs as subrecipients of states, must follow the procurement standards set out at 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.326. They must use their own documented procurement procedures, which reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform to applicable federal statutes and the procurement requirements identified in 2 CFR Part 200. Views from Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. Management has established written policies and procedures for procurement. Management confirmed policies and procedures were followed and monitored during the construction of the project. Written policies and procedures were completed after year-end. Contact Person: John Jacques Date of Completion: November 14, 2025

Monitoring over federal awards – The District has corrected the reporting error for ESSER fund expenditures and is increasing its monitoring responsibilities to meet the needs of federal programs in the future. The District will be developing controls over reporting of federal funds to ensure these funds reconcile to the general ledger going forward.

The Food Services Division is committed to providing great food and maintaining rigorous internal controls and continuous monitoring to safeguard program integrity. The discrepancy found at one school is not representative of our program, as we do ongoing random audits of submitted claims to verify the accuracy of submitted data. These layered oversight measures provide multiple levels of verification to minimize and eliminate the likelihood of reporting errors and ensure compliance with applicable state and federal program requirements. At Annalee El, the school with an overclaim of 104 meals, we found that the manager had moved from the school, and in the interim, our review protocol fell short. Given the large volume of meals served annually across the District, the over-claim discrepancy identified during the FY 24-25 audit represents an isolated incident rather than a systemic deficiency in LAUSD Food Services operations. The claim verification process followed at schools is stated below: • The Food Service Manager conducts a weekly review of the prior week’s daily meal count documents to identify and correct any discrepancies. • The Food Service Manager generates and reviews a weekly Meal Counts Report from the Cafeteria Management System (CMS) to verify recorded data. • The Food Service Manager compares the daily meal count documents against the five-day Meal Counts Report to ensure data alignment and accuracy. • The Manager performs an additional verification by reconciling daily meal count documents with the five-day Meal Counts Report from CMS. Any identified errors are corrected immediately in CMS. This reconciliation process is completed prior to the submission of claims to the Child Nutrition Information and Payment System. • The Area Food Services Supervisor (AFSS) and Regional Manager (RM) conduct random weekly reviews of meal counts for accuracy, utilizing reports provided by Central Office staff to support this verification process. • Central Office staff perform a monthly audit of meal count records and prepare a draft report for review by the AFSS and RM to validate findings and confirm accuracy. Retraining of the staff at Annalee El has been completed, and the manager and supervisor teams are verifying that the above protocol is being followed consistently at all schools. Name: Manish Singh Title: Director, Food Services Division Telephone: (213) 241-2993

2025-002 SEFA Presentation Error – Prior Year Criteria: Uniform Guidance (2 CFR §200.510(b)) requires that the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) accurately present all federal awards, including the correct identifying numbers assigned by pass-through entities for each award. Accurate reporting is essential to ensure compliance with funding requirements and enable proper tracking and monitoring of federal awards. Client’s Response: Last year was the organization’s first time going through a Single Audit. Although the organization accurately tracked expenditures corresponding to the grant award, the transactions were charged to an unrestricted program. The correction was detected and corrected during this fiscal year. We have implemented the necessary internal controls to ensure that our grant reporting accurately reflects the expenditures for each of our respective grants. Proposed Implementation Date – 12/31/2025 Name of Contact Person – John Edwards, Sr. Email: jledwards@umadaop.org Phone: 419-255-4444

2025-001 Costs Incurred Beyond the Period of Performance Criteria: According to 2 CFR §§200.1, 200.308, 200.309, 200.344, and 200.403(h), a non-Federal entity may only charge allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of the Federal award’s period of performance, and any costs incurred before the Federal award was made that were authorized by the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity. All financial obligations incurred under the Federal award must be liquidated within the required time period. Costs incurred outside the approved period of performance are unallowable and constitute questioned costs. Client’s Response: During the grant cycle, the Organization submitted for an extension but did not receive confirmation of said extension. During the current fiscal year, the Organization has implemented additional controls to ensure that all grant funding is expended within the timeframe allotted. Proposed Implementation Date – 12/31/2025 Name of Contact Person – John Edwards, Sr. Email: jledwards@umadaop.org Phone: 419-255-4444

FINDING 2025-001: PELL GRANT AWARD We concur with the finding and will follow established procedures more closely to ensure that, in the future, Pell Grant awards are calculated and disbursed in accordance with the federal regulations. The following corrective actions have been implemented: • The institution has strengthened internal controls to ensure that all Pell Grant awards are calculated and disbursed in strict compliance with federal regulations. • A reconciliation process for Pell Grant awards has been implemented. Pell Grant awards and scheduled credits are now reviewed and reconciled at the conclusion of the institution’s add/drop period to ensure accuracy before any disbursement occurs. • The institution has discontinued the practice of early disbursements. Beginning with Winter quarter, Pell Grant funds will not be drawn down or disbursed prior to the close of the add/drop period.

Broadlawns Medical Center respectfully submits the following corrective action plan for the year ended June 30, 2024. Audit period: July 1, 2023 – June 30, 2024 The finding from the schedule of findings and questioned costs is discussed below. The finding is numbered consistently with the number assigned in the schedule. FINDING—FEDERAL AWARD PROGRAMS AUDITS DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 2024-001 Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children – CFDA No. 10.557 Recommendation; We recommend the Medical Center review the WIC expenses monthly to ensure during month end close process that all costs are allowable and deemed to be reimbursable as a part of the federal award program. Explanation of disagreement with audit finding: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Action taken in response to finding: The Organization adopted a monthly review process as part of the monthly close process. Name of the contact person responsible for corrective action: Jim Lynch Planned completion date for corrective action plan: Next Fiscal Year If there are questions regarding this plan, please call Jim Lynch at 515-282-2296

View of Responsible Officials: ICMEC experienced delays in completing the audit due to the accounting for a closure of a consolidated overseas entity (ICMEC Australia). As this entity has been discontinued, ICMEC anticipates completing the single audit timely moving forward.

View of Responsible Officials: ICMEC discovered an error during FY2024 that resulted in overdraws for their Federal awards as well as drawing expenses from one award that should have been drawn under a different award. After meeting with the funder, ICMEC began to reduce its draws to reduce the overdraw balance. Additionally, ICMEC has received a modification and extension to one of its grants that allows for retroactive indirect and salary costs. As of 8/31/25, the net balance of all JTIP grants combined is close to zero. We are working to correct the individual balances.

Audit Finding Reference Number: 2024-003 Federal Program: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Assistance Listing Number (ALN): 21.027 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Contact Person(s) Responsible for Corrective Action: Jessica Trusty Director of Finance jtrusty@co.morgan.co.us or 970-542-3508 Planned Corrective Action: The SLFRF funds were one-time funds received during the aftermath of the COVID Pandemic and related recovery. All funds related to this grant have been spent and the grant closed out. I will work with my sta􀀁 to make any necessary corrections to the SLFRF 12/31/2024 report. Morgan County will also implement the following procedures to ensure accurate reporting of all grant expenditures and fiscal year end dates: Establish a review and reconciliation process to ensure all future federal grant compliance reports are reconciled to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards and underlying accounting records. Provide additional training to sta􀀁 responsible for preparing compliance reports on Uniform Guidance requirements and related grant reporting standards. Assign oversight responsibility to a senior sta􀀁 member to review and approve all grant related compliance reports prior to submission. Anticipated Completion Date: June 30, 2026