Findings Citing § 200.300

CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that either 1) three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000 were obtained, 2) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods over $22,500 or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors: Saving Ourselves ($30,000), AGI Repair ($16,216), IXL ($19,218), Learning Systems Associates LLC ($25,425), AGC Education Inc. ($11,644), Apple ($163,505), Germ Solutions LLC ($160,070), Graham Security ($12,025), Curriculum Designers, Inc. ($27,875), RJ Rhodes Transit, Inc. ($24,845). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented and over $22,500 formal bidding procedures must be utilized. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, or 4) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding. QUESTIONED COST: $490,823 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, and 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding. VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan

CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that 1) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods or services over $22,500 and 2) a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000), or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors –– Houghton Mifflin-Harcourt ($509,919), Beaver Valley Intermediate Unit ($419,826), and Smart Solutions ($449,303). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, or 4) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). QUESTIONED COST: $1,379,048 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, and 5) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan

Reference Number: 2023-019 Category of Finding: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency and Instance of Noncompliance State Administering Department: California Department of Social Services (CDSS) Assistance Listing Numbers: 96.001 Federal Program Title: Disability Insurance/SSI Cluster: Social Security Disability Insurance Federal Award Number and Year: 04-2204CADI00; 2022 Criteria Title 2 – Grants and Agreements. Subtitle A – Office of Management and Budget Guidance for Grants and Agreements. Chapter II – Office of Management and Budget Guidance. Part 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. Subpart D – Post Federal Award Requirements. Standards for Financial and Program Management. §200.303 Internal controls (2 CFR 200.303): The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Title 2 – Grants and Agreements. Subtitle A – Office of Management and Budget Guidance for Grants and Agreements. Chapter II – Office of Management and Budget Guidance. Part 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. Subpart E – Cost Principles. §200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs. Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following criteria to be allowable under Federal awards: (g) Be adequately documented. See §200.300 through §200.309.   Condition The documentation for one of forty samples selected for testing did not agree to the payment disbursed to a provider for medical evidence of record (MER) services. The provider was overpaid by $5. Identification as a Repeat Finding This was not a repeat finding from the immediate prior year. Cause CDSS has represented that the cause was an input error in the Midas subledger when processing the vendor payment. Effect CDSS did not have appropriate oversight controls to ensure that the data entry was accurate. Accordingly, there is an increased risk for data entry directly affecting the amount reported on the schedule of expenditures of federal awards to be inaccurate. Questioned Costs Questioned costs are projected to be $54,398. Context The total MER expenditures for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, were $4,432,781, which represents 1.8% of the total program expenditures of the Disability Insurance/SSI Cluster of $242,946,482. The sample was not a statistically valid sample. Recommendation CDSS should strengthen its controls over the review for accuracy of the provider invoice amounts input into Midas. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is reported in “Management’s Response and Corrective Action Plan” included in a separate section at the end of this report.

FINDING REFERENCE NUMBER 2023-031 (See Finding Reference Number 2023-003) FEDERAL PROGRAM (ALN – 93.558) TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES (TANF) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AWARD NUMBERS 2021G996117; 2022G996117; 2023996117 (Federal Award Years: 2021 through 2023) ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION FOR SOCIOECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE FAMILY (ADSEF, BY ITS SPANISH ACRONYM) COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT ALLOWABLE COSTS/COSTS PRINCIPLES TYPE OF FINDING MATERIAL NONCOMPLIANCE AND MATERIAL WEAKNESS CRITERIA Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR 200 Subpart E §200.403, Factor affecting allowability of costs, establishes that: “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following criteria to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the recipient or subrecipient. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. For example, a cost must not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for State and local governments and Indian Tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See § 200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See §§ 200.300 through 200.309.” STATEMENT OF CONDITION As part of our audit procedures over allowable costs requirements for TANF program, we selected seven (7) voucher payments related to activities of prevention. We found the following deficiencies: (a) When we obtained the vouchers related to payments of a contractor, we also requested the contract and the proposal, we noted that the Entity is a subrecipient and not a contractor. The transactions related to this contract were not identified as subrecipient in the SEFA (see Finding Reference Number 2023-058). We audited three (3) vouchers of this subrecipient, in each one, this Entity claimed reimbursement for utilities, supplies, and materials. When we observed documentation in the file, we noted that the entity administers other Federal awards; and no evidence was observed in the voucher that proper distribution of administrative costs is made among all Federal awards. In addition, the contract required a certification indicating absence of duplication of services provided, and it was not included in the invoice or supporting documentation. (b) In the other four (4) vouchers evaluated related to payments to contractors, reimbursement claimed by the contractors included the purchase of laptops and digital screens. No evidence was provided that indicated who is responsible for this equipment, where it is located, and how it is safeguarded. These suppliers were contracted to provide training and workshops for participants of TANF. In the invoices evaluated we noted that ADSEF is paying for all costs of the entity, including supplies, maintenance of vehicles, mileage for some personnel, telephone charges, internet, and other utilities. In the final draft of the SEFA submitted for audit procedures, ADSEF reported the amount of $2,411,184, which included all transactions related to preventive services. QUESTIONED COSTS None. PERSPECTIVE INFORMATION This is a systemic deficiency. Total transactions related to prevention services were one-hundred seven (107), amounting to $2,411,184. ADSEF does not have internal guidance and procedures establishing how transactions with sub-recipients will be handled and how they are accounted for. Furthermore, there are no internal controls documenting the evaluation of the operational costs of suppliers contracted to provide a service, and their operational expenses must be covered by them and not claimed directly from the program. STATEMENT OF CAUSE ADSEF does not have a work plan and internal control guidance that clearly defines permissible activities and describes the activities that will be carried out to meet program requirements through the contracting of suppliers and sub-recipients. POSSIBLE ASSERTED EFFECT ADSEF may be incurring non-allowable costs by reimbursing expenses not properly stipulated in the allowable cost regulations for program administration. Furthermore, the expenses incurred by the sub-recipient are not identified in the database in a manner that allows them to be identified for the preparation of the SEFA. IDENTIFICATION OF REPEAT FINDING No reported as prior audit finding. RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend management to establish internal control processes consistent with the requirements of 2 CFR 200. In addition, design and implement internal control processes to meet the requirements of subrecipient monitoring and procurement standards.

WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES / CRITERIA/ UNIFORM GUIDANCE 2 CFR PART 200 UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL AWARDS, SUBPART D - POST FEDERAL AWARD REQUIREMENTS SECTION 200.300 THROUGH 200.346 REQUIRES THAT THE GRANTEE ESTABLISH WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE APPLICABLE FEDERAL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS. / CONDITION / THE CITY HAS APPROVED WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR PROCUREMENT AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. HOWEVER, THE APPROVED PROCEDURES DO NOT CONTAIN ALL THE REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF THE UNIFORM GUIDANCE. / CAUSE / THE CITY WAS NOT AWARE THAT UNIFORM GUIDANCE REQUIRED WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR EACH APPLICABLE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT / EFFECT / THE RISK OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH AN APPLICABLE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT IS INCREASED WITHOUT WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. / QUESTIONED COSTS / THERE ARE NOT ANY QUESTIONED COSTS AS A RESULT OF THIS FINDING. / PERSPECTIVE / THE CONDITION WOULD BE CONSIDERED SYSTEMATIC, IN THAT THE CITY'S WRITTEN PROCEDURES DO NOT ADDRESS THE REQUIREMENTS OF UNIFORM GUIDANCE. / PRIOR FINDING / THE CITY DID NOT HAVE A SINGLE AUDIT IN THE PRIOR YEAR, AND THEREFORE PRIOR AUDIT FINDINGS DO NOT APPLY TO THIS MATTER. / RECOMMENDATIONS / THE CITY SHOULD REVIEW THE REQUIREMENTS OF EACH FEDERAL PROGRAM AND DEVELOP WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR EACH APPLICABLE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT. THE CITY SHOULD ADOPT A WRITTEN GRANT MANAGEMENT POLICY THAT INCORPORATES UNIFORM GUIDANCE AND IS APPLICABLE TO FEDERAL AWARDS. / MANAGEMENT RESPONSE / THE CITY AGREES WITH THE FINDING. IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS, THE CITY WILL REVIEW THE FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND DEVELOP WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES THAT ADDRESS THE ADMINISTRATION OF EACH APPLICABLE FEDERAL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT IN CONFORMITY WITH UNIFORM GUIDANCE.

WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES / CRITERIA/ UNIFORM GUIDANCE 2 CFR PART 200 UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL AWARDS, SUBPART D - POST FEDERAL AWARD REQUIREMENTS SECTION 200.300 THROUGH 200.346 REQUIRES THAT THE GRANTEE ESTABLISH WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE APPLICABLE FEDERAL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS. / CONDITION / THE CITY HAS APPROVED WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR PROCUREMENT AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. HOWEVER, THE APPROVED PROCEDURES DO NOT CONTAIN ALL THE REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF THE UNIFORM GUIDANCE. / CAUSE / THE CITY WAS NOT AWARE THAT UNIFORM GUIDANCE REQUIRED WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR EACH APPLICABLE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT / EFFECT / THE RISK OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH AN APPLICABLE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT IS INCREASED WITHOUT WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. / QUESTIONED COSTS / THERE ARE NOT ANY QUESTIONED COSTS AS A RESULT OF THIS FINDING. / PERSPECTIVE / THE CONDITION WOULD BE CONSIDERED SYSTEMATIC, IN THAT THE CITY'S WRITTEN PROCEDURES DO NOT ADDRESS THE REQUIREMENTS OF UNIFORM GUIDANCE. / PRIOR FINDING / THE CITY DID NOT HAVE A SINGLE AUDIT IN THE PRIOR YEAR, AND THEREFORE PRIOR AUDIT FINDINGS DO NOT APPLY TO THIS MATTER. / RECOMMENDATIONS / THE CITY SHOULD REVIEW THE REQUIREMENTS OF EACH FEDERAL PROGRAM AND DEVELOP WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR EACH APPLICABLE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT. THE CITY SHOULD ADOPT A WRITTEN GRANT MANAGEMENT POLICY THAT INCORPORATES UNIFORM GUIDANCE AND IS APPLICABLE TO FEDERAL AWARDS. / MANAGEMENT RESPONSE / THE CITY AGREES WITH THE FINDING. IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS, THE CITY WILL REVIEW THE FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND DEVELOP WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES THAT ADDRESS THE ADMINISTRATION OF EACH APPLICABLE FEDERAL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT IN CONFORMITY WITH UNIFORM GUIDANCE.

WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES / CRITERIA/ UNIFORM GUIDANCE 2 CFR PART 200 UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL AWARDS, SUBPART D - POST FEDERAL AWARD REQUIREMENTS SECTION 200.300 THROUGH 200.346 REQUIRES THAT THE GRANTEE ESTABLISH WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE APPLICABLE FEDERAL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS. / CONDITION / THE CITY HAS APPROVED WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR PROCUREMENT AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. HOWEVER, THE APPROVED PROCEDURES DO NOT CONTAIN ALL THE REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF THE UNIFORM GUIDANCE. / CAUSE / THE CITY WAS NOT AWARE THAT UNIFORM GUIDANCE REQUIRED WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR EACH APPLICABLE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT / EFFECT / THE RISK OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH AN APPLICABLE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT IS INCREASED WITHOUT WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. / QUESTIONED COSTS / THERE ARE NOT ANY QUESTIONED COSTS AS A RESULT OF THIS FINDING. / PERSPECTIVE / THE CONDITION WOULD BE CONSIDERED SYSTEMATIC, IN THAT THE CITY'S WRITTEN PROCEDURES DO NOT ADDRESS THE REQUIREMENTS OF UNIFORM GUIDANCE. / PRIOR FINDING / THE CITY DID NOT HAVE A SINGLE AUDIT IN THE PRIOR YEAR, AND THEREFORE PRIOR AUDIT FINDINGS DO NOT APPLY TO THIS MATTER. / RECOMMENDATIONS / THE CITY SHOULD REVIEW THE REQUIREMENTS OF EACH FEDERAL PROGRAM AND DEVELOP WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR EACH APPLICABLE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT. THE CITY SHOULD ADOPT A WRITTEN GRANT MANAGEMENT POLICY THAT INCORPORATES UNIFORM GUIDANCE AND IS APPLICABLE TO FEDERAL AWARDS. / MANAGEMENT RESPONSE / THE CITY AGREES WITH THE FINDING. IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS, THE CITY WILL REVIEW THE FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND DEVELOP WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES THAT ADDRESS THE ADMINISTRATION OF EACH APPLICABLE FEDERAL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT IN CONFORMITY WITH UNIFORM GUIDANCE.

WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES / CRITERIA/ UNIFORM GUIDANCE 2 CFR PART 200 UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL AWARDS, SUBPART D - POST FEDERAL AWARD REQUIREMENTS SECTION 200.300 THROUGH 200.346 REQUIRES THAT THE GRANTEE ESTABLISH WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE APPLICABLE FEDERAL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS. / CONDITION / THE CITY HAS APPROVED WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR PROCUREMENT AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. HOWEVER, THE APPROVED PROCEDURES DO NOT CONTAIN ALL THE REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF THE UNIFORM GUIDANCE. / CAUSE / THE CITY WAS NOT AWARE THAT UNIFORM GUIDANCE REQUIRED WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR EACH APPLICABLE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT / EFFECT / THE RISK OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH AN APPLICABLE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT IS INCREASED WITHOUT WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. / QUESTIONED COSTS / THERE ARE NOT ANY QUESTIONED COSTS AS A RESULT OF THIS FINDING. / PERSPECTIVE / THE CONDITION WOULD BE CONSIDERED SYSTEMATIC, IN THAT THE CITY'S WRITTEN PROCEDURES DO NOT ADDRESS THE REQUIREMENTS OF UNIFORM GUIDANCE. / PRIOR FINDING / THE CITY DID NOT HAVE A SINGLE AUDIT IN THE PRIOR YEAR, AND THEREFORE PRIOR AUDIT FINDINGS DO NOT APPLY TO THIS MATTER. / RECOMMENDATIONS / THE CITY SHOULD REVIEW THE REQUIREMENTS OF EACH FEDERAL PROGRAM AND DEVELOP WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR EACH APPLICABLE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT. THE CITY SHOULD ADOPT A WRITTEN GRANT MANAGEMENT POLICY THAT INCORPORATES UNIFORM GUIDANCE AND IS APPLICABLE TO FEDERAL AWARDS. / MANAGEMENT RESPONSE / THE CITY AGREES WITH THE FINDING. IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS, THE CITY WILL REVIEW THE FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND DEVELOP WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES THAT ADDRESS THE ADMINISTRATION OF EACH APPLICABLE FEDERAL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT IN CONFORMITY WITH UNIFORM GUIDANCE.

WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES / CRITERIA/ UNIFORM GUIDANCE 2 CFR PART 200 UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL AWARDS, SUBPART D - POST FEDERAL AWARD REQUIREMENTS SECTION 200.300 THROUGH 200.346 REQUIRES THAT THE GRANTEE ESTABLISH WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE APPLICABLE FEDERAL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS. / CONDITION / THE CITY HAS APPROVED WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR PROCUREMENT AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. HOWEVER, THE APPROVED PROCEDURES DO NOT CONTAIN ALL THE REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF THE UNIFORM GUIDANCE. / CAUSE / THE CITY WAS NOT AWARE THAT UNIFORM GUIDANCE REQUIRED WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR EACH APPLICABLE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT / EFFECT / THE RISK OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH AN APPLICABLE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT IS INCREASED WITHOUT WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. / QUESTIONED COSTS / THERE ARE NOT ANY QUESTIONED COSTS AS A RESULT OF THIS FINDING. / PERSPECTIVE / THE CONDITION WOULD BE CONSIDERED SYSTEMATIC, IN THAT THE CITY'S WRITTEN PROCEDURES DO NOT ADDRESS THE REQUIREMENTS OF UNIFORM GUIDANCE. / PRIOR FINDING / THE CITY DID NOT HAVE A SINGLE AUDIT IN THE PRIOR YEAR, AND THEREFORE PRIOR AUDIT FINDINGS DO NOT APPLY TO THIS MATTER. / RECOMMENDATIONS / THE CITY SHOULD REVIEW THE REQUIREMENTS OF EACH FEDERAL PROGRAM AND DEVELOP WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR EACH APPLICABLE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT. THE CITY SHOULD ADOPT A WRITTEN GRANT MANAGEMENT POLICY THAT INCORPORATES UNIFORM GUIDANCE AND IS APPLICABLE TO FEDERAL AWARDS. / MANAGEMENT RESPONSE / THE CITY AGREES WITH THE FINDING. IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS, THE CITY WILL REVIEW THE FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND DEVELOP WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES THAT ADDRESS THE ADMINISTRATION OF EACH APPLICABLE FEDERAL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT IN CONFORMITY WITH UNIFORM GUIDANCE.

WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES / CRITERIA/ UNIFORM GUIDANCE 2 CFR PART 200 UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL AWARDS, SUBPART D - POST FEDERAL AWARD REQUIREMENTS SECTION 200.300 THROUGH 200.346 REQUIRES THAT THE GRANTEE ESTABLISH WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE APPLICABLE FEDERAL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS. / CONDITION / THE CITY HAS APPROVED WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR PROCUREMENT AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. HOWEVER, THE APPROVED PROCEDURES DO NOT CONTAIN ALL THE REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF THE UNIFORM GUIDANCE. / CAUSE / THE CITY WAS NOT AWARE THAT UNIFORM GUIDANCE REQUIRED WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR EACH APPLICABLE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT / EFFECT / THE RISK OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH AN APPLICABLE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT IS INCREASED WITHOUT WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. / QUESTIONED COSTS / THERE ARE NOT ANY QUESTIONED COSTS AS A RESULT OF THIS FINDING. / PERSPECTIVE / THE CONDITION WOULD BE CONSIDERED SYSTEMATIC, IN THAT THE CITY'S WRITTEN PROCEDURES DO NOT ADDRESS THE REQUIREMENTS OF UNIFORM GUIDANCE. / PRIOR FINDING / THE CITY DID NOT HAVE A SINGLE AUDIT IN THE PRIOR YEAR, AND THEREFORE PRIOR AUDIT FINDINGS DO NOT APPLY TO THIS MATTER. / RECOMMENDATIONS / THE CITY SHOULD REVIEW THE REQUIREMENTS OF EACH FEDERAL PROGRAM AND DEVELOP WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR EACH APPLICABLE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT. THE CITY SHOULD ADOPT A WRITTEN GRANT MANAGEMENT POLICY THAT INCORPORATES UNIFORM GUIDANCE AND IS APPLICABLE TO FEDERAL AWARDS. / MANAGEMENT RESPONSE / THE CITY AGREES WITH THE FINDING. IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS, THE CITY WILL REVIEW THE FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND DEVELOP WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES THAT ADDRESS THE ADMINISTRATION OF EACH APPLICABLE FEDERAL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT IN CONFORMITY WITH UNIFORM GUIDANCE.

WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES / CRITERIA/ UNIFORM GUIDANCE 2 CFR PART 200 UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL AWARDS, SUBPART D - POST FEDERAL AWARD REQUIREMENTS SECTION 200.300 THROUGH 200.346 REQUIRES THAT THE GRANTEE ESTABLISH WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE APPLICABLE FEDERAL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS. / CONDITION / THE CITY HAS APPROVED WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR PROCUREMENT AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. HOWEVER, THE APPROVED PROCEDURES DO NOT CONTAIN ALL THE REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF THE UNIFORM GUIDANCE. / CAUSE / THE CITY WAS NOT AWARE THAT UNIFORM GUIDANCE REQUIRED WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR EACH APPLICABLE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT / EFFECT / THE RISK OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH AN APPLICABLE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT IS INCREASED WITHOUT WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. / QUESTIONED COSTS / THERE ARE NOT ANY QUESTIONED COSTS AS A RESULT OF THIS FINDING. / PERSPECTIVE / THE CONDITION WOULD BE CONSIDERED SYSTEMATIC, IN THAT THE CITY'S WRITTEN PROCEDURES DO NOT ADDRESS THE REQUIREMENTS OF UNIFORM GUIDANCE. / PRIOR FINDING / THE CITY DID NOT HAVE A SINGLE AUDIT IN THE PRIOR YEAR, AND THEREFORE PRIOR AUDIT FINDINGS DO NOT APPLY TO THIS MATTER. / RECOMMENDATIONS / THE CITY SHOULD REVIEW THE REQUIREMENTS OF EACH FEDERAL PROGRAM AND DEVELOP WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR EACH APPLICABLE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT. THE CITY SHOULD ADOPT A WRITTEN GRANT MANAGEMENT POLICY THAT INCORPORATES UNIFORM GUIDANCE AND IS APPLICABLE TO FEDERAL AWARDS. / MANAGEMENT RESPONSE / THE CITY AGREES WITH THE FINDING. IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS, THE CITY WILL REVIEW THE FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND DEVELOP WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES THAT ADDRESS THE ADMINISTRATION OF EACH APPLICABLE FEDERAL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT IN CONFORMITY WITH UNIFORM GUIDANCE.

WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES / CRITERIA/ UNIFORM GUIDANCE 2 CFR PART 200 UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL AWARDS, SUBPART D - POST FEDERAL AWARD REQUIREMENTS SECTION 200.300 THROUGH 200.346 REQUIRES THAT THE GRANTEE ESTABLISH WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE APPLICABLE FEDERAL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS. / CONDITION / THE CITY HAS APPROVED WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR PROCUREMENT AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. HOWEVER, THE APPROVED PROCEDURES DO NOT CONTAIN ALL THE REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF THE UNIFORM GUIDANCE. / CAUSE / THE CITY WAS NOT AWARE THAT UNIFORM GUIDANCE REQUIRED WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR EACH APPLICABLE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT / EFFECT / THE RISK OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH AN APPLICABLE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT IS INCREASED WITHOUT WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. / QUESTIONED COSTS / THERE ARE NOT ANY QUESTIONED COSTS AS A RESULT OF THIS FINDING. / PERSPECTIVE / THE CONDITION WOULD BE CONSIDERED SYSTEMATIC, IN THAT THE CITY'S WRITTEN PROCEDURES DO NOT ADDRESS THE REQUIREMENTS OF UNIFORM GUIDANCE. / PRIOR FINDING / THE CITY DID NOT HAVE A SINGLE AUDIT IN THE PRIOR YEAR, AND THEREFORE PRIOR AUDIT FINDINGS DO NOT APPLY TO THIS MATTER. / RECOMMENDATIONS / THE CITY SHOULD REVIEW THE REQUIREMENTS OF EACH FEDERAL PROGRAM AND DEVELOP WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR EACH APPLICABLE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT. THE CITY SHOULD ADOPT A WRITTEN GRANT MANAGEMENT POLICY THAT INCORPORATES UNIFORM GUIDANCE AND IS APPLICABLE TO FEDERAL AWARDS. / MANAGEMENT RESPONSE / THE CITY AGREES WITH THE FINDING. IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS, THE CITY WILL REVIEW THE FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND DEVELOP WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES THAT ADDRESS THE ADMINISTRATION OF EACH APPLICABLE FEDERAL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT IN CONFORMITY WITH UNIFORM GUIDANCE.

WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES / CRITERIA/ UNIFORM GUIDANCE 2 CFR PART 200 UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL AWARDS, SUBPART D - POST FEDERAL AWARD REQUIREMENTS SECTION 200.300 THROUGH 200.346 REQUIRES THAT THE GRANTEE ESTABLISH WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE APPLICABLE FEDERAL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS. / CONDITION / THE CITY HAS APPROVED WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR PROCUREMENT AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. HOWEVER, THE APPROVED PROCEDURES DO NOT CONTAIN ALL THE REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF THE UNIFORM GUIDANCE. / CAUSE / THE CITY WAS NOT AWARE THAT UNIFORM GUIDANCE REQUIRED WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR EACH APPLICABLE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT / EFFECT / THE RISK OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH AN APPLICABLE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT IS INCREASED WITHOUT WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. / QUESTIONED COSTS / THERE ARE NOT ANY QUESTIONED COSTS AS A RESULT OF THIS FINDING. / PERSPECTIVE / THE CONDITION WOULD BE CONSIDERED SYSTEMATIC, IN THAT THE CITY'S WRITTEN PROCEDURES DO NOT ADDRESS THE REQUIREMENTS OF UNIFORM GUIDANCE. / PRIOR FINDING / THE CITY DID NOT HAVE A SINGLE AUDIT IN THE PRIOR YEAR, AND THEREFORE PRIOR AUDIT FINDINGS DO NOT APPLY TO THIS MATTER. / RECOMMENDATIONS / THE CITY SHOULD REVIEW THE REQUIREMENTS OF EACH FEDERAL PROGRAM AND DEVELOP WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR EACH APPLICABLE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT. THE CITY SHOULD ADOPT A WRITTEN GRANT MANAGEMENT POLICY THAT INCORPORATES UNIFORM GUIDANCE AND IS APPLICABLE TO FEDERAL AWARDS. / MANAGEMENT RESPONSE / THE CITY AGREES WITH THE FINDING. IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS, THE CITY WILL REVIEW THE FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND DEVELOP WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES THAT ADDRESS THE ADMINISTRATION OF EACH APPLICABLE FEDERAL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT IN CONFORMITY WITH UNIFORM GUIDANCE.

WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES / CRITERIA/ UNIFORM GUIDANCE 2 CFR PART 200 UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL AWARDS, SUBPART D - POST FEDERAL AWARD REQUIREMENTS SECTION 200.300 THROUGH 200.346 REQUIRES THAT THE GRANTEE ESTABLISH WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE APPLICABLE FEDERAL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS. / CONDITION / THE CITY HAS APPROVED WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR PROCUREMENT AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. HOWEVER, THE APPROVED PROCEDURES DO NOT CONTAIN ALL THE REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF THE UNIFORM GUIDANCE. / CAUSE / THE CITY WAS NOT AWARE THAT UNIFORM GUIDANCE REQUIRED WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR EACH APPLICABLE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT / EFFECT / THE RISK OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH AN APPLICABLE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT IS INCREASED WITHOUT WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. / QUESTIONED COSTS / THERE ARE NOT ANY QUESTIONED COSTS AS A RESULT OF THIS FINDING. / PERSPECTIVE / THE CONDITION WOULD BE CONSIDERED SYSTEMATIC, IN THAT THE CITY'S WRITTEN PROCEDURES DO NOT ADDRESS THE REQUIREMENTS OF UNIFORM GUIDANCE. / PRIOR FINDING / THE CITY DID NOT HAVE A SINGLE AUDIT IN THE PRIOR YEAR, AND THEREFORE PRIOR AUDIT FINDINGS DO NOT APPLY TO THIS MATTER. / RECOMMENDATIONS / THE CITY SHOULD REVIEW THE REQUIREMENTS OF EACH FEDERAL PROGRAM AND DEVELOP WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR EACH APPLICABLE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT. THE CITY SHOULD ADOPT A WRITTEN GRANT MANAGEMENT POLICY THAT INCORPORATES UNIFORM GUIDANCE AND IS APPLICABLE TO FEDERAL AWARDS. / MANAGEMENT RESPONSE / THE CITY AGREES WITH THE FINDING. IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS, THE CITY WILL REVIEW THE FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND DEVELOP WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES THAT ADDRESS THE ADMINISTRATION OF EACH APPLICABLE FEDERAL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT IN CONFORMITY WITH UNIFORM GUIDANCE.

Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.241 Program: Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, COVID-19 Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: 558951 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: The Village allocated expenditures to programs during 2022 based on a direct allocation methodology. This allocation is done manually, and the support was inconsistently maintained. During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 12 of the 60 samples selected for testing within Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, did not have sufficient support for the allocation of the costs, or the costs themselves. Cause: The Village did not have policies and procedures in place to ensure that sufficient documentation was maintained to support the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate controls in place to ensure costs are allowable and reimbursable, including controls over review of allocation methodologies, the Village could incorrectly charge expenditures to the federal programs. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS: $6,830 Likely Questioned Costs Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS: $234,595 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS in 2022 were $1,173,061. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that sufficient documentation be maintained to support any allocations of costs as required by §200.403. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet and implementing new procedures to ensure accurate expenditure reporting.

Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.241 Program: Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, COVID-19 Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: 558951 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: The Village allocated expenditures to programs during 2022 based on a direct allocation methodology. This allocation is done manually, and the support was inconsistently maintained. During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 12 of the 60 samples selected for testing within Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, did not have sufficient support for the allocation of the costs, or the costs themselves. Cause: The Village did not have policies and procedures in place to ensure that sufficient documentation was maintained to support the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate controls in place to ensure costs are allowable and reimbursable, including controls over review of allocation methodologies, the Village could incorrectly charge expenditures to the federal programs. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS: $6,830 Likely Questioned Costs Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS: $234,595 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS in 2022 were $1,173,061. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that sufficient documentation be maintained to support any allocations of costs as required by §200.403. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet and implementing new procedures to ensure accurate expenditure reporting.

Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.

Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.

Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.

Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.

Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.

Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.

Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.

Finding 2022-001: Noncompliance with Procurement Policy Requirements Programs - CFDA 21.023 Emergency Rental Assistance Program, and CFDA 93.391 Activities to Support State, Tribal, Local, and Territorial (STLT) Health Department Response to Public Health or Healthcare Crisis Criteria: As required by 2 CFR 200, Subparts D and E (2 CFR sections 200.300 and 200.400, respectively), entities are required to maintain written policies, procedures, and standards of conduct (?policies?) for certain areas of its operation. The following sections of the Uniform Guidance require nonfederal entities that receive federal awards to establish written policies, procedures, or standards of conduct: ? Financial management (200.302) ? Federal payment (200.305) ? General procurement standards (200.318) ? Competition (200.319) ? Methods of procurement to be followed (200.320) ? Compensation?fringe benefits (200.431) ? Relocation costs of employees (200.464) ? Travel costs (200.475) Condition: Review of the Organization?s Financial Procedure manual noted it was updated August 2023, with the previous update being done in February 2014 ? prior to the year under audit. The 2014 update did not contain all of the required elements under 2 CFR 200, Subparts D and E (2 CFR sections 200.300 and 200.400). Cause: The Financial Procedures have not been updated recently to incorporate the current Federal regulation requirements. Effect: The Organization is not compliant with Federal regulations requiring written policies and procedures. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization approve and incorporate the policy updates incorporated within the August 2023 updated policies and procedures to ensure compliance with required regulations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this recommendation and will review and update its current Financial Procedures to ensure compliance.

Finding 2022-001: Noncompliance with Procurement Policy Requirements Programs - CFDA 21.023 Emergency Rental Assistance Program, and CFDA 93.391 Activities to Support State, Tribal, Local, and Territorial (STLT) Health Department Response to Public Health or Healthcare Crisis Criteria: As required by 2 CFR 200, Subparts D and E (2 CFR sections 200.300 and 200.400, respectively), entities are required to maintain written policies, procedures, and standards of conduct (?policies?) for certain areas of its operation. The following sections of the Uniform Guidance require nonfederal entities that receive federal awards to establish written policies, procedures, or standards of conduct: ? Financial management (200.302) ? Federal payment (200.305) ? General procurement standards (200.318) ? Competition (200.319) ? Methods of procurement to be followed (200.320) ? Compensation?fringe benefits (200.431) ? Relocation costs of employees (200.464) ? Travel costs (200.475) Condition: Review of the Organization?s Financial Procedure manual noted it was updated August 2023, with the previous update being done in February 2014 ? prior to the year under audit. The 2014 update did not contain all of the required elements under 2 CFR 200, Subparts D and E (2 CFR sections 200.300 and 200.400). Cause: The Financial Procedures have not been updated recently to incorporate the current Federal regulation requirements. Effect: The Organization is not compliant with Federal regulations requiring written policies and procedures. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization approve and incorporate the policy updates incorporated within the August 2023 updated policies and procedures to ensure compliance with required regulations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this recommendation and will review and update its current Financial Procedures to ensure compliance.

Finding 2022-001: Noncompliance with Procurement Policy Requirements Programs - CFDA 21.023 Emergency Rental Assistance Program, and CFDA 93.391 Activities to Support State, Tribal, Local, and Territorial (STLT) Health Department Response to Public Health or Healthcare Crisis Criteria: As required by 2 CFR 200, Subparts D and E (2 CFR sections 200.300 and 200.400, respectively), entities are required to maintain written policies, procedures, and standards of conduct (?policies?) for certain areas of its operation. The following sections of the Uniform Guidance require nonfederal entities that receive federal awards to establish written policies, procedures, or standards of conduct: ? Financial management (200.302) ? Federal payment (200.305) ? General procurement standards (200.318) ? Competition (200.319) ? Methods of procurement to be followed (200.320) ? Compensation?fringe benefits (200.431) ? Relocation costs of employees (200.464) ? Travel costs (200.475) Condition: Review of the Organization?s Financial Procedure manual noted it was updated August 2023, with the previous update being done in February 2014 ? prior to the year under audit. The 2014 update did not contain all of the required elements under 2 CFR 200, Subparts D and E (2 CFR sections 200.300 and 200.400). Cause: The Financial Procedures have not been updated recently to incorporate the current Federal regulation requirements. Effect: The Organization is not compliant with Federal regulations requiring written policies and procedures. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization approve and incorporate the policy updates incorporated within the August 2023 updated policies and procedures to ensure compliance with required regulations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this recommendation and will review and update its current Financial Procedures to ensure compliance.

Finding No. 2022-003: Allowability of Costs Federal Program: Research and Development Cluster, ALN 93.396, 93.361, 93.395, Award Numbers R01CA172513, R01NR018434, R01CA215651 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Pass through entity: N/A Federal Award year: August 6, 2020 through February 28, 2023, July 23, 2019 through July 31, 2023, August 28, 2020 through July 31, 2023 Criteria or Requirement: Per 2 CFR 200.303, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Uniform Guidance Part ?200.300(b), statutory and national policy requirements, establishes that the non Federal entity is responsible for complying with all requirements of the Federal award. Federal awards under the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2016 (H.R. 2029) granted by HHS National Institute of Health (NIH), have restrictions on the amount of direct salary charged to the awards limited to the Executive Level II of the Federal Executive pay scale (salary cap). Uniform Guidance Part ?200.408, limitation on allowance of costs, states that the Federal award may be subject to statutory requirements that limit the allowability of costs. When the maximum allowable under a limitation is less than the total amount of the award, the amount not recoverable under the Federal award may not be charged to the Federal award. Condition Found, Including Perspective: During our testwork over the NIH salary cap, we identified three individuals in a sample of 10 with a salary charged to an award in excess of the salary cap by $3,206. The sampled salary for NIH salary cap population was a charge to the grant of $187,586. Total salary charged to NIH was $2,128,430. Cause and Possible Effect: While there is a control in place to review all effort charged to NIH grants to ensure that charges, including any relevant cost transfers, do not exceed the defined salary cap, the control was not operating effectively in order to identify the overages. Questioned Costs: $3,206 Statistical Validity: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Repeat Finding in the Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend that management review its current policies and reinforce through training the elements necessary to fully comply with its policies and all requirements governing salary cap allowability. Views of Responsible Officials: Atrium Health management agrees with the finding. To address the current year finding, Office of Sponsored Programs has implemented internal control improvements to ensure all requirements that limit the salary cap allowability of costs are completed and documented appropriately.

Finding No. 2022-003: Allowability of Costs Federal Program: Research and Development Cluster, ALN 93.396, 93.361, 93.395, Award Numbers R01CA172513, R01NR018434, R01CA215651 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Pass through entity: N/A Federal Award year: August 6, 2020 through February 28, 2023, July 23, 2019 through July 31, 2023, August 28, 2020 through July 31, 2023 Criteria or Requirement: Per 2 CFR 200.303, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Uniform Guidance Part ?200.300(b), statutory and national policy requirements, establishes that the non Federal entity is responsible for complying with all requirements of the Federal award. Federal awards under the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2016 (H.R. 2029) granted by HHS National Institute of Health (NIH), have restrictions on the amount of direct salary charged to the awards limited to the Executive Level II of the Federal Executive pay scale (salary cap). Uniform Guidance Part ?200.408, limitation on allowance of costs, states that the Federal award may be subject to statutory requirements that limit the allowability of costs. When the maximum allowable under a limitation is less than the total amount of the award, the amount not recoverable under the Federal award may not be charged to the Federal award. Condition Found, Including Perspective: During our testwork over the NIH salary cap, we identified three individuals in a sample of 10 with a salary charged to an award in excess of the salary cap by $3,206. The sampled salary for NIH salary cap population was a charge to the grant of $187,586. Total salary charged to NIH was $2,128,430. Cause and Possible Effect: While there is a control in place to review all effort charged to NIH grants to ensure that charges, including any relevant cost transfers, do not exceed the defined salary cap, the control was not operating effectively in order to identify the overages. Questioned Costs: $3,206 Statistical Validity: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Repeat Finding in the Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend that management review its current policies and reinforce through training the elements necessary to fully comply with its policies and all requirements governing salary cap allowability. Views of Responsible Officials: Atrium Health management agrees with the finding. To address the current year finding, Office of Sponsored Programs has implemented internal control improvements to ensure all requirements that limit the salary cap allowability of costs are completed and documented appropriately.

Finding No. 2022-003: Allowability of Costs Federal Program: Research and Development Cluster, ALN 93.396, 93.361, 93.395, Award Numbers R01CA172513, R01NR018434, R01CA215651 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Pass through entity: N/A Federal Award year: August 6, 2020 through February 28, 2023, July 23, 2019 through July 31, 2023, August 28, 2020 through July 31, 2023 Criteria or Requirement: Per 2 CFR 200.303, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Uniform Guidance Part ?200.300(b), statutory and national policy requirements, establishes that the non Federal entity is responsible for complying with all requirements of the Federal award. Federal awards under the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2016 (H.R. 2029) granted by HHS National Institute of Health (NIH), have restrictions on the amount of direct salary charged to the awards limited to the Executive Level II of the Federal Executive pay scale (salary cap). Uniform Guidance Part ?200.408, limitation on allowance of costs, states that the Federal award may be subject to statutory requirements that limit the allowability of costs. When the maximum allowable under a limitation is less than the total amount of the award, the amount not recoverable under the Federal award may not be charged to the Federal award. Condition Found, Including Perspective: During our testwork over the NIH salary cap, we identified three individuals in a sample of 10 with a salary charged to an award in excess of the salary cap by $3,206. The sampled salary for NIH salary cap population was a charge to the grant of $187,586. Total salary charged to NIH was $2,128,430. Cause and Possible Effect: While there is a control in place to review all effort charged to NIH grants to ensure that charges, including any relevant cost transfers, do not exceed the defined salary cap, the control was not operating effectively in order to identify the overages. Questioned Costs: $3,206 Statistical Validity: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Repeat Finding in the Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend that management review its current policies and reinforce through training the elements necessary to fully comply with its policies and all requirements governing salary cap allowability. Views of Responsible Officials: Atrium Health management agrees with the finding. To address the current year finding, Office of Sponsored Programs has implemented internal control improvements to ensure all requirements that limit the salary cap allowability of costs are completed and documented appropriately.

Federal Agency: Department of Justice Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 16.756, 16.726 Programs: Court Appointed Special Advocates, Juvenile Mentoring Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: 2018-CH-BX-K001, 15PJDP-21-GK-02762-CASA, 2019-MU-FX-0004, 2020-JU-FX-0028 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under federal awards: a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the federal award as to types or amount of cost items. c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-federal entity. d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the federal award as an indirect cost. e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: National CASA/GAL allocated expenditures to programs during 2022 based on a direct allocation methodology. This allocation is done manually, and the support was inconsistently maintained. During our testing of costs (excluding salaries, see finding 2022-003), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that: For Court Appointed Special Advocates: • One of 60 transactions was partially charged in the incorrect fiscal period. • One of 60 transactions underlying supporting documentation was not retained. • 19 of 60 transactions had inconsistent allocation methods (based on an estimated metric such as estimated time on program or square feet space utilized) applied to costs. • 21 of 60 transactions lacked documentation of review and approval of the allocation of costs made through journal entries. For the Juvenile Mentoring Program: • One of 60 transactions lacked documentation of all required reviews and approvals. • One of 60 transactions the incorrect allocation rate was utilized. • One of 60 transactions underlying supporting documentation was not retained. • 27 of 60 transactions lacked documentation of review and approval of the allocation of costs made through journal entries. Cause: National CASA/GAL did not have procedures in place to document, and maintain the documentation of, the review and approval of the allocation methodology and the allocation of costs (journal entries). Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate controls in place to ensure costs are allowable and reimbursable, including controls over review of allocation methodologies, National CASA/GAL could incorrectly charge expenditures to the federal programs. Questioned Costs Court Appointed Special Advocates: Below reporting threshold. Questioned Costs Juvenile Mentoring Program: Below reporting threshold. Context: This is a condition identified per review of National CASA/GAL’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the Court Appointed Special Advocates in 2022 were $6,500,295. The sample tested consisted of 60 transactions totaling $165,919. Nonpayroll costs for the Juvenile Mentoring Program in 2022 were $2,401,373. The sample tested consisted of 60 transactions totaling $151,177. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. For Court Appointed Special Advocates, four transactions resulted in questioned costs of $3,139. For the Juvenile Mentoring Program, two transactions resulted in questioned costs of $456. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that policies and procedures be updated to ensure underlying support, as well as support for allocations is appropriately maintained as required by §200.403. Views of Responsible Officials: Management concurs with the finding that procedures should specify that documentation of review and approval of both the costs charged and the allocation method of costs charged to federal grants be maintained. Management put policies in place to capture the documentation and maintenance of documentation indicating supervisor review and approval.

Federal Agency: Department of Justice Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 16.756, 16.726 Programs: Court Appointed Special Advocates, Juvenile Mentoring Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: 2018-CH-BX-K001, 15PJDP-21-GK-02762-CASA, 2019-MU-FX-0004, 2020-JU-FX-0028 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under federal awards: a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the federal award as to types or amount of cost items. c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-federal entity. d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the federal award as an indirect cost. e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: National CASA/GAL allocated expenditures to programs during 2022 based on a direct allocation methodology. This allocation is done manually, and the support was inconsistently maintained. During our testing of costs (excluding salaries, see finding 2022-003), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that: For Court Appointed Special Advocates: • One of 60 transactions was partially charged in the incorrect fiscal period. • One of 60 transactions underlying supporting documentation was not retained. • 19 of 60 transactions had inconsistent allocation methods (based on an estimated metric such as estimated time on program or square feet space utilized) applied to costs. • 21 of 60 transactions lacked documentation of review and approval of the allocation of costs made through journal entries. For the Juvenile Mentoring Program: • One of 60 transactions lacked documentation of all required reviews and approvals. • One of 60 transactions the incorrect allocation rate was utilized. • One of 60 transactions underlying supporting documentation was not retained. • 27 of 60 transactions lacked documentation of review and approval of the allocation of costs made through journal entries. Cause: National CASA/GAL did not have procedures in place to document, and maintain the documentation of, the review and approval of the allocation methodology and the allocation of costs (journal entries). Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate controls in place to ensure costs are allowable and reimbursable, including controls over review of allocation methodologies, National CASA/GAL could incorrectly charge expenditures to the federal programs. Questioned Costs Court Appointed Special Advocates: Below reporting threshold. Questioned Costs Juvenile Mentoring Program: Below reporting threshold. Context: This is a condition identified per review of National CASA/GAL’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the Court Appointed Special Advocates in 2022 were $6,500,295. The sample tested consisted of 60 transactions totaling $165,919. Nonpayroll costs for the Juvenile Mentoring Program in 2022 were $2,401,373. The sample tested consisted of 60 transactions totaling $151,177. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. For Court Appointed Special Advocates, four transactions resulted in questioned costs of $3,139. For the Juvenile Mentoring Program, two transactions resulted in questioned costs of $456. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that policies and procedures be updated to ensure underlying support, as well as support for allocations is appropriately maintained as required by §200.403. Views of Responsible Officials: Management concurs with the finding that procedures should specify that documentation of review and approval of both the costs charged and the allocation method of costs charged to federal grants be maintained. Management put policies in place to capture the documentation and maintenance of documentation indicating supervisor review and approval.

Federal Agency: Department of Justice Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 16.756, 16.726 Programs: Court Appointed Special Advocates, Juvenile Mentoring Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: 2018-CH-BX-K001, 15PJDP-21-GK-02762-CASA, 2019-MU-FX-0004, 2020-JU-FX-0028 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under federal awards: a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the federal award as to types or amount of cost items. c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-federal entity. d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the federal award as an indirect cost. e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: National CASA/GAL allocated expenditures to programs during 2022 based on a direct allocation methodology. This allocation is done manually, and the support was inconsistently maintained. During our testing of costs (excluding salaries, see finding 2022-003), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that: For Court Appointed Special Advocates: • One of 60 transactions was partially charged in the incorrect fiscal period. • One of 60 transactions underlying supporting documentation was not retained. • 19 of 60 transactions had inconsistent allocation methods (based on an estimated metric such as estimated time on program or square feet space utilized) applied to costs. • 21 of 60 transactions lacked documentation of review and approval of the allocation of costs made through journal entries. For the Juvenile Mentoring Program: • One of 60 transactions lacked documentation of all required reviews and approvals. • One of 60 transactions the incorrect allocation rate was utilized. • One of 60 transactions underlying supporting documentation was not retained. • 27 of 60 transactions lacked documentation of review and approval of the allocation of costs made through journal entries. Cause: National CASA/GAL did not have procedures in place to document, and maintain the documentation of, the review and approval of the allocation methodology and the allocation of costs (journal entries). Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate controls in place to ensure costs are allowable and reimbursable, including controls over review of allocation methodologies, National CASA/GAL could incorrectly charge expenditures to the federal programs. Questioned Costs Court Appointed Special Advocates: Below reporting threshold. Questioned Costs Juvenile Mentoring Program: Below reporting threshold. Context: This is a condition identified per review of National CASA/GAL’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the Court Appointed Special Advocates in 2022 were $6,500,295. The sample tested consisted of 60 transactions totaling $165,919. Nonpayroll costs for the Juvenile Mentoring Program in 2022 were $2,401,373. The sample tested consisted of 60 transactions totaling $151,177. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. For Court Appointed Special Advocates, four transactions resulted in questioned costs of $3,139. For the Juvenile Mentoring Program, two transactions resulted in questioned costs of $456. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that policies and procedures be updated to ensure underlying support, as well as support for allocations is appropriately maintained as required by §200.403. Views of Responsible Officials: Management concurs with the finding that procedures should specify that documentation of review and approval of both the costs charged and the allocation method of costs charged to federal grants be maintained. Management put policies in place to capture the documentation and maintenance of documentation indicating supervisor review and approval.

Federal Agency: Department of Justice Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 16.756, 16.726 Programs: Court Appointed Special Advocates, Juvenile Mentoring Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: 2018-CH-BX-K001, 15PJDP-21-GK-02762-CASA, 2019-MU-FX-0004, 2020-JU-FX-0028 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under federal awards: a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the federal award as to types or amount of cost items. c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-federal entity. d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the federal award as an indirect cost. e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: National CASA/GAL allocated expenditures to programs during 2022 based on a direct allocation methodology. This allocation is done manually, and the support was inconsistently maintained. During our testing of costs (excluding salaries, see finding 2022-003), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that: For Court Appointed Special Advocates: • One of 60 transactions was partially charged in the incorrect fiscal period. • One of 60 transactions underlying supporting documentation was not retained. • 19 of 60 transactions had inconsistent allocation methods (based on an estimated metric such as estimated time on program or square feet space utilized) applied to costs. • 21 of 60 transactions lacked documentation of review and approval of the allocation of costs made through journal entries. For the Juvenile Mentoring Program: • One of 60 transactions lacked documentation of all required reviews and approvals. • One of 60 transactions the incorrect allocation rate was utilized. • One of 60 transactions underlying supporting documentation was not retained. • 27 of 60 transactions lacked documentation of review and approval of the allocation of costs made through journal entries. Cause: National CASA/GAL did not have procedures in place to document, and maintain the documentation of, the review and approval of the allocation methodology and the allocation of costs (journal entries). Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate controls in place to ensure costs are allowable and reimbursable, including controls over review of allocation methodologies, National CASA/GAL could incorrectly charge expenditures to the federal programs. Questioned Costs Court Appointed Special Advocates: Below reporting threshold. Questioned Costs Juvenile Mentoring Program: Below reporting threshold. Context: This is a condition identified per review of National CASA/GAL’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the Court Appointed Special Advocates in 2022 were $6,500,295. The sample tested consisted of 60 transactions totaling $165,919. Nonpayroll costs for the Juvenile Mentoring Program in 2022 were $2,401,373. The sample tested consisted of 60 transactions totaling $151,177. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. For Court Appointed Special Advocates, four transactions resulted in questioned costs of $3,139. For the Juvenile Mentoring Program, two transactions resulted in questioned costs of $456. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that policies and procedures be updated to ensure underlying support, as well as support for allocations is appropriately maintained as required by §200.403. Views of Responsible Officials: Management concurs with the finding that procedures should specify that documentation of review and approval of both the costs charged and the allocation method of costs charged to federal grants be maintained. Management put policies in place to capture the documentation and maintenance of documentation indicating supervisor review and approval.

Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.241 Program: Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, COVID-19 Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: 558951 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: The Village allocated expenditures to programs during 2022 based on a direct allocation methodology. This allocation is done manually, and the support was inconsistently maintained. During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 12 of the 60 samples selected for testing within Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, did not have sufficient support for the allocation of the costs, or the costs themselves. Cause: The Village did not have policies and procedures in place to ensure that sufficient documentation was maintained to support the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate controls in place to ensure costs are allowable and reimbursable, including controls over review of allocation methodologies, the Village could incorrectly charge expenditures to the federal programs. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS: $6,830 Likely Questioned Costs Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS: $234,595 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS in 2022 were $1,173,061. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that sufficient documentation be maintained to support any allocations of costs as required by §200.403. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet and implementing new procedures to ensure accurate expenditure reporting.

Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.241 Program: Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, COVID-19 Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: 558951 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: The Village allocated expenditures to programs during 2022 based on a direct allocation methodology. This allocation is done manually, and the support was inconsistently maintained. During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 12 of the 60 samples selected for testing within Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, did not have sufficient support for the allocation of the costs, or the costs themselves. Cause: The Village did not have policies and procedures in place to ensure that sufficient documentation was maintained to support the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate controls in place to ensure costs are allowable and reimbursable, including controls over review of allocation methodologies, the Village could incorrectly charge expenditures to the federal programs. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS: $6,830 Likely Questioned Costs Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS: $234,595 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS in 2022 were $1,173,061. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that sufficient documentation be maintained to support any allocations of costs as required by §200.403. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet and implementing new procedures to ensure accurate expenditure reporting.

Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.

Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.

Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.

Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.

Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.

Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.

Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.

Finding 2022-001: Noncompliance with Procurement Policy Requirements Programs - CFDA 21.023 Emergency Rental Assistance Program, and CFDA 93.391 Activities to Support State, Tribal, Local, and Territorial (STLT) Health Department Response to Public Health or Healthcare Crisis Criteria: As required by 2 CFR 200, Subparts D and E (2 CFR sections 200.300 and 200.400, respectively), entities are required to maintain written policies, procedures, and standards of conduct (?policies?) for certain areas of its operation. The following sections of the Uniform Guidance require nonfederal entities that receive federal awards to establish written policies, procedures, or standards of conduct: ? Financial management (200.302) ? Federal payment (200.305) ? General procurement standards (200.318) ? Competition (200.319) ? Methods of procurement to be followed (200.320) ? Compensation?fringe benefits (200.431) ? Relocation costs of employees (200.464) ? Travel costs (200.475) Condition: Review of the Organization?s Financial Procedure manual noted it was updated August 2023, with the previous update being done in February 2014 ? prior to the year under audit. The 2014 update did not contain all of the required elements under 2 CFR 200, Subparts D and E (2 CFR sections 200.300 and 200.400). Cause: The Financial Procedures have not been updated recently to incorporate the current Federal regulation requirements. Effect: The Organization is not compliant with Federal regulations requiring written policies and procedures. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization approve and incorporate the policy updates incorporated within the August 2023 updated policies and procedures to ensure compliance with required regulations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this recommendation and will review and update its current Financial Procedures to ensure compliance.

Finding 2022-001: Noncompliance with Procurement Policy Requirements Programs - CFDA 21.023 Emergency Rental Assistance Program, and CFDA 93.391 Activities to Support State, Tribal, Local, and Territorial (STLT) Health Department Response to Public Health or Healthcare Crisis Criteria: As required by 2 CFR 200, Subparts D and E (2 CFR sections 200.300 and 200.400, respectively), entities are required to maintain written policies, procedures, and standards of conduct (?policies?) for certain areas of its operation. The following sections of the Uniform Guidance require nonfederal entities that receive federal awards to establish written policies, procedures, or standards of conduct: ? Financial management (200.302) ? Federal payment (200.305) ? General procurement standards (200.318) ? Competition (200.319) ? Methods of procurement to be followed (200.320) ? Compensation?fringe benefits (200.431) ? Relocation costs of employees (200.464) ? Travel costs (200.475) Condition: Review of the Organization?s Financial Procedure manual noted it was updated August 2023, with the previous update being done in February 2014 ? prior to the year under audit. The 2014 update did not contain all of the required elements under 2 CFR 200, Subparts D and E (2 CFR sections 200.300 and 200.400). Cause: The Financial Procedures have not been updated recently to incorporate the current Federal regulation requirements. Effect: The Organization is not compliant with Federal regulations requiring written policies and procedures. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization approve and incorporate the policy updates incorporated within the August 2023 updated policies and procedures to ensure compliance with required regulations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this recommendation and will review and update its current Financial Procedures to ensure compliance.

Finding 2022-001: Noncompliance with Procurement Policy Requirements Programs - CFDA 21.023 Emergency Rental Assistance Program, and CFDA 93.391 Activities to Support State, Tribal, Local, and Territorial (STLT) Health Department Response to Public Health or Healthcare Crisis Criteria: As required by 2 CFR 200, Subparts D and E (2 CFR sections 200.300 and 200.400, respectively), entities are required to maintain written policies, procedures, and standards of conduct (?policies?) for certain areas of its operation. The following sections of the Uniform Guidance require nonfederal entities that receive federal awards to establish written policies, procedures, or standards of conduct: ? Financial management (200.302) ? Federal payment (200.305) ? General procurement standards (200.318) ? Competition (200.319) ? Methods of procurement to be followed (200.320) ? Compensation?fringe benefits (200.431) ? Relocation costs of employees (200.464) ? Travel costs (200.475) Condition: Review of the Organization?s Financial Procedure manual noted it was updated August 2023, with the previous update being done in February 2014 ? prior to the year under audit. The 2014 update did not contain all of the required elements under 2 CFR 200, Subparts D and E (2 CFR sections 200.300 and 200.400). Cause: The Financial Procedures have not been updated recently to incorporate the current Federal regulation requirements. Effect: The Organization is not compliant with Federal regulations requiring written policies and procedures. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization approve and incorporate the policy updates incorporated within the August 2023 updated policies and procedures to ensure compliance with required regulations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this recommendation and will review and update its current Financial Procedures to ensure compliance.

Finding No. 2022-003: Allowability of Costs Federal Program: Research and Development Cluster, ALN 93.396, 93.361, 93.395, Award Numbers R01CA172513, R01NR018434, R01CA215651 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Pass through entity: N/A Federal Award year: August 6, 2020 through February 28, 2023, July 23, 2019 through July 31, 2023, August 28, 2020 through July 31, 2023 Criteria or Requirement: Per 2 CFR 200.303, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Uniform Guidance Part ?200.300(b), statutory and national policy requirements, establishes that the non Federal entity is responsible for complying with all requirements of the Federal award. Federal awards under the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2016 (H.R. 2029) granted by HHS National Institute of Health (NIH), have restrictions on the amount of direct salary charged to the awards limited to the Executive Level II of the Federal Executive pay scale (salary cap). Uniform Guidance Part ?200.408, limitation on allowance of costs, states that the Federal award may be subject to statutory requirements that limit the allowability of costs. When the maximum allowable under a limitation is less than the total amount of the award, the amount not recoverable under the Federal award may not be charged to the Federal award. Condition Found, Including Perspective: During our testwork over the NIH salary cap, we identified three individuals in a sample of 10 with a salary charged to an award in excess of the salary cap by $3,206. The sampled salary for NIH salary cap population was a charge to the grant of $187,586. Total salary charged to NIH was $2,128,430. Cause and Possible Effect: While there is a control in place to review all effort charged to NIH grants to ensure that charges, including any relevant cost transfers, do not exceed the defined salary cap, the control was not operating effectively in order to identify the overages. Questioned Costs: $3,206 Statistical Validity: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Repeat Finding in the Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend that management review its current policies and reinforce through training the elements necessary to fully comply with its policies and all requirements governing salary cap allowability. Views of Responsible Officials: Atrium Health management agrees with the finding. To address the current year finding, Office of Sponsored Programs has implemented internal control improvements to ensure all requirements that limit the salary cap allowability of costs are completed and documented appropriately.

Finding No. 2022-003: Allowability of Costs Federal Program: Research and Development Cluster, ALN 93.396, 93.361, 93.395, Award Numbers R01CA172513, R01NR018434, R01CA215651 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Pass through entity: N/A Federal Award year: August 6, 2020 through February 28, 2023, July 23, 2019 through July 31, 2023, August 28, 2020 through July 31, 2023 Criteria or Requirement: Per 2 CFR 200.303, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Uniform Guidance Part ?200.300(b), statutory and national policy requirements, establishes that the non Federal entity is responsible for complying with all requirements of the Federal award. Federal awards under the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2016 (H.R. 2029) granted by HHS National Institute of Health (NIH), have restrictions on the amount of direct salary charged to the awards limited to the Executive Level II of the Federal Executive pay scale (salary cap). Uniform Guidance Part ?200.408, limitation on allowance of costs, states that the Federal award may be subject to statutory requirements that limit the allowability of costs. When the maximum allowable under a limitation is less than the total amount of the award, the amount not recoverable under the Federal award may not be charged to the Federal award. Condition Found, Including Perspective: During our testwork over the NIH salary cap, we identified three individuals in a sample of 10 with a salary charged to an award in excess of the salary cap by $3,206. The sampled salary for NIH salary cap population was a charge to the grant of $187,586. Total salary charged to NIH was $2,128,430. Cause and Possible Effect: While there is a control in place to review all effort charged to NIH grants to ensure that charges, including any relevant cost transfers, do not exceed the defined salary cap, the control was not operating effectively in order to identify the overages. Questioned Costs: $3,206 Statistical Validity: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Repeat Finding in the Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend that management review its current policies and reinforce through training the elements necessary to fully comply with its policies and all requirements governing salary cap allowability. Views of Responsible Officials: Atrium Health management agrees with the finding. To address the current year finding, Office of Sponsored Programs has implemented internal control improvements to ensure all requirements that limit the salary cap allowability of costs are completed and documented appropriately.

Finding No. 2022-003: Allowability of Costs Federal Program: Research and Development Cluster, ALN 93.396, 93.361, 93.395, Award Numbers R01CA172513, R01NR018434, R01CA215651 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Pass through entity: N/A Federal Award year: August 6, 2020 through February 28, 2023, July 23, 2019 through July 31, 2023, August 28, 2020 through July 31, 2023 Criteria or Requirement: Per 2 CFR 200.303, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Uniform Guidance Part ?200.300(b), statutory and national policy requirements, establishes that the non Federal entity is responsible for complying with all requirements of the Federal award. Federal awards under the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2016 (H.R. 2029) granted by HHS National Institute of Health (NIH), have restrictions on the amount of direct salary charged to the awards limited to the Executive Level II of the Federal Executive pay scale (salary cap). Uniform Guidance Part ?200.408, limitation on allowance of costs, states that the Federal award may be subject to statutory requirements that limit the allowability of costs. When the maximum allowable under a limitation is less than the total amount of the award, the amount not recoverable under the Federal award may not be charged to the Federal award. Condition Found, Including Perspective: During our testwork over the NIH salary cap, we identified three individuals in a sample of 10 with a salary charged to an award in excess of the salary cap by $3,206. The sampled salary for NIH salary cap population was a charge to the grant of $187,586. Total salary charged to NIH was $2,128,430. Cause and Possible Effect: While there is a control in place to review all effort charged to NIH grants to ensure that charges, including any relevant cost transfers, do not exceed the defined salary cap, the control was not operating effectively in order to identify the overages. Questioned Costs: $3,206 Statistical Validity: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Repeat Finding in the Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend that management review its current policies and reinforce through training the elements necessary to fully comply with its policies and all requirements governing salary cap allowability. Views of Responsible Officials: Atrium Health management agrees with the finding. To address the current year finding, Office of Sponsored Programs has implemented internal control improvements to ensure all requirements that limit the salary cap allowability of costs are completed and documented appropriately.

Federal Agency: Department of Justice Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 16.756, 16.726 Programs: Court Appointed Special Advocates, Juvenile Mentoring Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: 2018-CH-BX-K001, 15PJDP-21-GK-02762-CASA, 2019-MU-FX-0004, 2020-JU-FX-0028 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under federal awards: a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the federal award as to types or amount of cost items. c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-federal entity. d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the federal award as an indirect cost. e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: National CASA/GAL allocated expenditures to programs during 2022 based on a direct allocation methodology. This allocation is done manually, and the support was inconsistently maintained. During our testing of costs (excluding salaries, see finding 2022-003), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that: For Court Appointed Special Advocates: • One of 60 transactions was partially charged in the incorrect fiscal period. • One of 60 transactions underlying supporting documentation was not retained. • 19 of 60 transactions had inconsistent allocation methods (based on an estimated metric such as estimated time on program or square feet space utilized) applied to costs. • 21 of 60 transactions lacked documentation of review and approval of the allocation of costs made through journal entries. For the Juvenile Mentoring Program: • One of 60 transactions lacked documentation of all required reviews and approvals. • One of 60 transactions the incorrect allocation rate was utilized. • One of 60 transactions underlying supporting documentation was not retained. • 27 of 60 transactions lacked documentation of review and approval of the allocation of costs made through journal entries. Cause: National CASA/GAL did not have procedures in place to document, and maintain the documentation of, the review and approval of the allocation methodology and the allocation of costs (journal entries). Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate controls in place to ensure costs are allowable and reimbursable, including controls over review of allocation methodologies, National CASA/GAL could incorrectly charge expenditures to the federal programs. Questioned Costs Court Appointed Special Advocates: Below reporting threshold. Questioned Costs Juvenile Mentoring Program: Below reporting threshold. Context: This is a condition identified per review of National CASA/GAL’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the Court Appointed Special Advocates in 2022 were $6,500,295. The sample tested consisted of 60 transactions totaling $165,919. Nonpayroll costs for the Juvenile Mentoring Program in 2022 were $2,401,373. The sample tested consisted of 60 transactions totaling $151,177. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. For Court Appointed Special Advocates, four transactions resulted in questioned costs of $3,139. For the Juvenile Mentoring Program, two transactions resulted in questioned costs of $456. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that policies and procedures be updated to ensure underlying support, as well as support for allocations is appropriately maintained as required by §200.403. Views of Responsible Officials: Management concurs with the finding that procedures should specify that documentation of review and approval of both the costs charged and the allocation method of costs charged to federal grants be maintained. Management put policies in place to capture the documentation and maintenance of documentation indicating supervisor review and approval.

Federal Agency: Department of Justice Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 16.756, 16.726 Programs: Court Appointed Special Advocates, Juvenile Mentoring Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: 2018-CH-BX-K001, 15PJDP-21-GK-02762-CASA, 2019-MU-FX-0004, 2020-JU-FX-0028 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under federal awards: a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the federal award as to types or amount of cost items. c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-federal entity. d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the federal award as an indirect cost. e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: National CASA/GAL allocated expenditures to programs during 2022 based on a direct allocation methodology. This allocation is done manually, and the support was inconsistently maintained. During our testing of costs (excluding salaries, see finding 2022-003), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that: For Court Appointed Special Advocates: • One of 60 transactions was partially charged in the incorrect fiscal period. • One of 60 transactions underlying supporting documentation was not retained. • 19 of 60 transactions had inconsistent allocation methods (based on an estimated metric such as estimated time on program or square feet space utilized) applied to costs. • 21 of 60 transactions lacked documentation of review and approval of the allocation of costs made through journal entries. For the Juvenile Mentoring Program: • One of 60 transactions lacked documentation of all required reviews and approvals. • One of 60 transactions the incorrect allocation rate was utilized. • One of 60 transactions underlying supporting documentation was not retained. • 27 of 60 transactions lacked documentation of review and approval of the allocation of costs made through journal entries. Cause: National CASA/GAL did not have procedures in place to document, and maintain the documentation of, the review and approval of the allocation methodology and the allocation of costs (journal entries). Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate controls in place to ensure costs are allowable and reimbursable, including controls over review of allocation methodologies, National CASA/GAL could incorrectly charge expenditures to the federal programs. Questioned Costs Court Appointed Special Advocates: Below reporting threshold. Questioned Costs Juvenile Mentoring Program: Below reporting threshold. Context: This is a condition identified per review of National CASA/GAL’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the Court Appointed Special Advocates in 2022 were $6,500,295. The sample tested consisted of 60 transactions totaling $165,919. Nonpayroll costs for the Juvenile Mentoring Program in 2022 were $2,401,373. The sample tested consisted of 60 transactions totaling $151,177. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. For Court Appointed Special Advocates, four transactions resulted in questioned costs of $3,139. For the Juvenile Mentoring Program, two transactions resulted in questioned costs of $456. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that policies and procedures be updated to ensure underlying support, as well as support for allocations is appropriately maintained as required by §200.403. Views of Responsible Officials: Management concurs with the finding that procedures should specify that documentation of review and approval of both the costs charged and the allocation method of costs charged to federal grants be maintained. Management put policies in place to capture the documentation and maintenance of documentation indicating supervisor review and approval.