Findings Citing § 200.303

Finding 2025-003 – L. Reporting – Special Reports for Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (“FFATA”) Information on Federal Program(s) – From Learning to Leading: Cultivating the Next Generation of Diverse Food and Agriculture Professionals (ALN 10.237) Criteria or Specific Requirement – Under the requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act recipients (i.e., direct recipients) of grants or cooperative agreements are required to report first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more to System for Award Management (SAM.gov). The subaward/subcontract was subject to reporting under the Transparency Act and therefore any related subaward agreements/amendments/modifications were to be reported in SAM.gov no later than the last day of the month following the month in which the subaward/subaward amendment obligation was made or the subcontract award/subcontract modification was made. Additionally, the Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200.303, Internal Controls, requires that non-Federal entities receiving Federal awards (i.e., auditee management) establish and maintain internal controls designed to reasonably ensure compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition – The subaward agreement/amendment/modification was not submitted within the required time frame. Cause - Administrative oversight and insufficient internal controls. Effect or Potential Effect – The subaward agreement was not submitted within the required time frames resulting in the University not being in compliance with special reporting requirements. Questioned Costs – None. Context – We tested the one subaward subject to FFATA requirements during the year. The University did not submit the subaward agreement within the required time frame on SAM.gov. Indication of Repeat Finding – No similar finding noted in the prior year. Recommendation – We recommend that the University enhance its procedures and internal controls related to subrecipient reporting. Views of Responsible Officials – The University acknowledges Finding 2025-003 regarding noncompliance with reporting requirements under the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. Specifically, the University did not submit a first-tier subaward agreement/amendment/modification within the required timeframe to the System for Award Management (SAM.gov). The University will implement the following corrective actions to address the identified deficiencies: • Internal audit oversight and governance • Enhanced tracking and monitoring systems • Strengthening policies and procedures • Improved interdepartmental coordination • Training and capacity building • Pre-submission review and quality assurance By implementing these measures, the University aims to rectify the identified deficiency and prevent similar occurrences in the future, thereby upholding the integrity of its financial aid programs and maintaining compliance with federal requirements.

Finding 2025-001 – N. Special Tests and Provisions – Enrollment Reporting – Program Level Information on Federal Program(s) – Student Financial Assistance Cluster (ALN’s 84.007, 84.033 84.063, 84.268) Criteria or Specific Requirement – Institutions are required to report enrollment information under the Pell grant and the Direct and Federal Family Education Loan (“FFEL”) loan programs via the National Student Loan Data System (“NSLDS”) (OMB No. 1845-0035), although FFEL loans are no longer made or a part of the SFA Cluster, a student may have a FFEL loan from previous years that would require enrollment reporting for that student (Pell, 34 CFR 690.83(b)(2); FFEL, 34 CFR 682.610; Direct Loan, 34 CFR 685.309; Perkins 34 CFR 674.19(f)). The administration of the Title IV programs depends heavily on the accuracy and timeliness of the enrollment information reported by institutions. Institutions must review, update, and certify student enrollment statuses, program information, and effective dates that appear on the Enrollment Reporting Roster file or on the Enrollment Maintenance page of the NSLDS Professional Access (“NSLDSFAP”) website which the financial aid administrator can access for the auditor. The data on the institution’s Enrollment Reporting Roster, or Enrollment Maintenance page, is what NSLDS has as the most recently certified enrollment. There are two categories of enrollment information, “Campus Level” and “Program Level,” both of which need to be reported accurately and have separate record types. The NSLDS Enrollment Reporting Guide provides the requirements and guidance for reporting enrollment details using the NSLDS Enrollment Reporting Process. Campus Level: Institutions are responsible for accurately and timely reporting certain significant data elements under the Campus-Level Record that the U.S. Department of Education considers high risk, including enrollment status, which is the student’s enrollment status as of the reporting date; full-time (F), three-quarter time (Q), half-time (H), less than half-time (L), leave of absence (A), graduated (G), withdrawn (W), deceased (D), never attended (X) and record not found (Z). At a minimum, institutions are required to certify enrollment every 60 days or every other month. Program Level: Institutions are responsible for accurately and timely reporting certain significant data elements under the Program Level Record that the U.S. Department of Education considers high risk, including OPEID number, CIP code, CIP year, credit level, program enrollment status, program enrollment effective date, program length, and program begin date. Additionally, the Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200.303, Internal Controls, requires that non-Federal entities receiving Federal awards (i.e., auditee management) establish and maintain internal controls designed to reasonably ensure compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition – The condition was as follows: Program Level: For certain students that had enrollment status changes, the University incorrectly reported enrollment status, the program begin date, and/or the program enrollment effective date. Cause - Administrative oversight and insufficient internal controls. Effect or Potential Effect – The University is not in compliance with campus level enrollment reporting requirements. Failure to promptly report accurate and timely changes in enrollment status may adversely impact the repayment status for student loan borrowers. Questioned Costs – None. Context – The context is as follows: Program Level: • For 2 of 25 students selected for testing, the program enrollment effective date was incorrectly reported. Indication of Repeat Finding – This is a partial repeat of prior year finding 2024-001. Recommendation – We recommend that the University enhance its procedures and internal controls over the applicable compliance requirements of the enrollment reporting requirement to ensure that all status changes are accurate and submitted to the NSLDS website within the required timeframe. Views of Responsible Officials – The University acknowledges Finding 2025-001 related to deficiencies in enrollment reporting at the program level under the Pell Grant, Direct Loan, and Federal Family Education Loan (“FFEL”) programs. The University concurs with the finding and recognizes the importance of accurate and timely reporting to the National Student Loan Data System (“NSLDS”) in accordance with federal requirements (OMB No. 1845-0035). The University will implement the following corrective actions to address the identified deficiencies: • Establishment of an internal audit function • Process review and cross-functional collaboration • Staffing and resource enhancements • Implementation of monitoring and control systems • Strengthening reporting protocols • Training and accountability measures By implementing these measures, the University aims to rectify the identified deficiency and prevent similar occurrences in the future, thereby upholding the integrity of its financial aid programs and maintaining compliance with federal requirements.

Finding 2025-002 – N. Special Tests and Provisions – Return of Title IV Funds Information on Federal Program(s) – Student Financial Assistance Cluster (ALN’s 84.007, 84.033, 84.063 and 84.268) Criteria or Specific Requirement – Returns of Title IV funds are required to be deposited or transferred into the student financial assistance account or electronic fund transfers initiated to U.S. Department of Education as soon as possible, but no later than 45 days after the date the institution determines that the student withdrew. Returns by check are late if the check is issued more than 45 days after the institution determined the student withdrew or the date on the canceled check shows the check was endorsed more than 60 days after the date the institution determined that the student withdrew (34 CFR 668.173(b)). Additionally, the Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200.303, Internal Controls, requires that non-Federal entities receiving Federal awards (i.e., auditee management) establish and maintain internal controls designed to reasonably ensure compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition – A return of Title IV funds for a student was not completed within the required time frames. Cause - Administrative oversight and insufficient internal controls. Effect or Potential Effect – A return of Title IV funds was not completed within the required time frames resulting in the University not being in compliance with return of Title IV funds requirements. Questioned Costs – None. Context – For 2 of 6 students selected for return of Title IV funds testing. Indication of Repeat Finding - This is a repeat of prior year finding 2024-003. Recommendation – We recommend that the University enhance its procedures and internal controls related to the return of Title IV funds within the required time frames. Views of Responsible Officials – The University acknowledges Finding 2025-002 regarding noncompliance with federal requirements governing the timely return of Title IV funds. This finding, which represents a repeat of prior year Finding 2024-003, is taken with the utmost seriousness. The University is committed to implementing immediate and sustainable corrective actions to ensure full compliance with all applicable federal regulations. The University will implement the following corrective actions to address the identified deficiencies: • Establishment of an internal audit function • Strengthening interdepartmental communication • Implementation of technological solutions • Process standardization and internal controls • Staffing, training and accountability By implementing these measures, the University aims to rectify the identified deficiency and prevent similar occurrences in the future, thereby upholding the integrity of its financial aid programs and maintaining compliance with federal requirements.

FEDERAL AWARD FINDING: 2025-101 The County did not develop internal control procedures over program reporting and cash management requirements, increasing risk of report errors to awarding agencies and wrongly receiving monies Cluster name: Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Cluster Assistance Listings number(s) and name(s): 17.258 WIOA Adult Program 17.259 WIOA Youth Activities 17.278 WIOA Dislocated Worker Formula Grants Award number(s) and year(s): IGA DI23-002389 July 1, 2023 through June 28, 2028 IGA DI21-002286 July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Labor Pass-through grantor(s): Arizona Department of Economic Security Compliance requirement(s): Reporting Questioned costs: Not applicable Assistance Listings number(s) and name(s): 21.027 COVID-19—Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number(s) and year(s): 1505-0271 March 3, 2021 through December 31, 2024 CT-FM-22-149 October 1, 2024 through September 30, 2025 SLFRFP1962 January 5, 2023 through December 31, 2026 CTR069300 January 1, 2024 through December 30, 2026 GTAW-FM-23*123 October 3, 2022 through July 3, 2026 ACJC-VC-25-001A July 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Pass-through grantor(s): Stratford Art Works; Arizona Supreme Court; Arizona Housing Coalition, Inc.; Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Compliance requirement(s): Reporting Questioned costs: Not applicable Assistance Listings number(s) and name(s): 93.268 Immunization Cooperative Agreements Award number(s) and year(s): CTR062571 July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2025 CTR059891 July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2027 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Pass-through grantor(s): Arizona Department of Health Services Compliance requirement(s): Cash management and reporting Questioned costs: Not applicable Condition Contrary to federal regulation, the County’s Grants Management and Innovation Department (Department) did not develop, document, or implement internal control procedures to monitor compliance with the programs’ reporting and/or cash management requirements for the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Cluster, Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) program, and Immunization Cooperative Agreements (ICA) programs. Specifically, for 13 of 17 reports we tested, we found the Department did not perform an independent review and approval of reports prior to submitting them to the federal agency or pass-through grantor to ensure the reported expenditures were accurate, agreed to the County’s records, and contained only allowable expenditures for: • 9 of 9 WIOA monthly reconciliation reports we tested. • 3 of 4 SLFRF quarterly project and expenditure reports we tested. • 1 of 4 ICA quarterly contract expenditure reports (CER) we tested. These reports are also used to request reimbursement from the federal agency. For the same 3 SLFRF reports identified above and submitted during fiscal year 2025, we found the Department did not retain documentation, such as system reports, screenshots, or queries, to support the information it reported. Despite lacking internal control procedures, we did not identify inaccurate program information for WIOA and ICA reported to the federal agency or pass-through grantor, and we did not identify any ICA costs incurred prior to requesting reimbursement. In addition, the Department did not prepare and submit timely ICA program information to the federal agency for monitoring. Specifically, for award CTR062571—the Immunization Bridge Access program, the Department failed to submit 3 quarterly CERs by their required due dates in fiscal year 2025 and instead, on August 2, 2025, submitted 1 report that contained information covering all quarterly information for fiscal year 2025. Effect Without effective internal control procedures in place, there is an increased risk that the Department may not prevent or detect and correct errors on reports it submits to federal agency and pass-through agencies, which rely on them to effectively monitor the program administration, including its compliance with program requirements, ability to prevent and detect fraud, and to evaluate the programs’ success. There is also an increased risk that the Department could receive federal monies to which it is not entitled. Further, the Department is at risk that this finding applies to other federal programs it administers. Cause The Department’s management reported that it had sometimes performed independent reviews and approvals of reports but did not maintain documentation of these independent reviews because the Department did not have a formal policy requiring a documented review and approval of its reports. In addition, the Department’s management reported that policies and procedures were not followed to retain documentation for the SLFRF reports. Further, the Department’s management reported it did not have a process to track when each ICA report was required to be completed and did not verify that reports were submitted by the designated due dates. Criteria Federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). This would include developing, documenting, and implementing internal control procedures to monitor compliance with federal agency guidelines requiring the Department to report accurate and complete information for the WIOA monthly reconciliation reports, SLFRF quarterly financial reports, and ICA quarterly contract expenditure reports. Also, federal regulation and Department retention policies require the Department to retain all records relating to a federal award for a period of 3 years from the date of its submission of the final expenditure report (2 CFR §200.334). Further, federal regulation requires the Department to submit financial reports as required by the federal award. Reports submitted quarterly are due no later than 30 calendar days after the reporting period (2 CFR §200.328). Recommendations to the Department 1. Perform and document an independent review and approval of federal program reports before submitting the reports to the federal agency to ensure the reported expenditures were accurate, agreed to the County’s records, and contained only allowable expenditures. 2. Retain detailed documentation, such as system reports, screenshots, or queries related to submitted reports to ensure accurate and complete program information is reported to the federal agency or pass-through grantor for each federal program. 3. Submit ICA reports by their quarterly due dates. 4. Follow its retention policies and procedures and federal regulation requirements to retain all records relating to a federal award for a period of 3 years from the date of its submission of the reports. Develop, document, and implement policies and procedures to monitor compliance with the programs’ reporting requirements to: 5. Perform and document an independent review and approval of federal program reports before submitting the reports to the federal agency or pass-through grantor to ensure reports are accurate, agree to County records, and contain only allowable expenditures for the applicable fiscal year. 6. Create a tracking mechanism to ensure reports are completed and submitted by their due dates. This finding is similar to prior-year finding 2024-104 that was initially reported in fiscal year 2024. Views of responsible officials County management concurs with this finding. The County’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials regarding these recommendations. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy.

Finding Reference: 2025-003 – I. Procurement, Suspension and Debarment Federal Program Information Federal Agencies: Department of Health and Human Services Department of Justice Awards: Assistance Listing 93.078 – Strengthening Emergency Care Delivery in the United States Healthcare System through Health Information and Promotion Assistance Listing 16.753 – Congressionally Recommended Awards Award Periods: September 30, 2023 – September 29, 2025 July 1, 2024 – September 30, 2026 Description: Incomplete Federal Requirements within Procurement Policies Criteria In accordance with Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 200.303, Internal controls, “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).” Part 200.320 Methods of procurement to be followed states the following: “The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319” regarding the methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. Condition As part of our testing over the operating effectiveness of internal controls over the Procurement, Suspension and Debarment assertion for our major programs, we noted that the Corporation did not have a procurement policy that conforms to all applicable standards contained in the Uniform Guidance, when purchasing goods or services with the federal funds. Cause The Corporation did not comply and maintain a procurement policy that conforms to the provisions required by the Uniform Guidance upon receiving such federal funds related to their federal programs. Effect or potential effect Purchasing of goods and/or servicing with the major federal programs may not be in compliance with the Uniform Guidance. Questioned costs None. Identification of a repeat finding This is a repeat finding of Finding 2024-006. Context Management has not established a procurement policy in line with the applicable standards contained in the Uniform Guidance based on review of the existing policy and discussions with management, however, no other instances of noncompliance with procurement standards identified in 2 CFR part 200 were noted as the amount of purchases exceeding the micro-purchase threshold was not direct and material to these programs and therefore no further testing over procurement was performed. Recommendation The Corporation should update its procurement policy to include the provisions required by the Uniform Guidance for purchasing goods and/or services with federal funds. View of responsible officials There is no disagreement with the audit finding.

Department of Treasury Passed through South Dakota Department of Social Services and South Dakota Department of Health Federal Financial Assistance Listing #21.027 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Procurement, Suspension & Debarment Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Compliance Department of Health and Human Services Federal Financial Assistance Listing #93.493 Congressional Directives Procurement, Suspension & Debarment Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Compliance Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 (a) establishes that the auditee must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides assurance that the entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and conditions of the federal award. 2 CFR 200 Appendix II requires certain provisions be included in contracts if criteria are applicable. Condition: Our testing over procurement suspension and debarment identified two contracts over $25,000 where some contract provisions required by Uniform Guidance were not included. Cause: There was a lapse in the internal control process in which contract provisions were not evaluated compared to Uniform Guidance contract requirements. Effect: Ineffective controls over this area of compliance resulted in contracts that did not include all contract provisions required by Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None reported. Context: One contract was selected for testing for program 21.027 and one contract was selected for testing for program 93.493. Both contracts were missing some contract provisions required by Uniform Guidance. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend the Organization review and strengthen the controls related to the review of contracts to ensure the contracts include the required Uniform Guidance provisions. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding.

Finding 2025-001 – NSLDS Reporting Federal Program: Student Financial Assistance Cluster Listing Number: 84.063 Federal Pell Grant Program 84.268 Federal Direct Student Loans Program Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Award Year: July 1, 2024 – June 30, 2025 Finding Type: Significant Deficiency and Noncompliance Criteria: Institutions are required to report enrollment information under the Pell Grant and the Direct Loan programs via the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) (OMB No. 1845-0035). The administration of the Title IV programs depends heavily on the accuracy and timeliness of the enrollment information reported by institutions. Institutions must review, update, and certify student enrollment statuses, program information, and effective dates that appear on the Enrollment Reporting Roster file or on the Enrollment Maintenance page of the NSLDS Professional Access (NSLDSFAP) website. The data on the institution’s Enrollment Reporting Roster, or Enrollment Maintenance page, is what NSLDS has as the most recently certified enrollment. There are two categories of enrollment information, “Campus Level” and “Program Level,” both of which need to be reported accurately and have separate record types. Institutions are responsible for accurately reporting all Campus-Level Record data elements. ED considers the following data elements to be high risk: • OPEID Number, Enrollment Effective Date, Enrollment Status, Certification Date Institutions are responsible for accurately reporting all Program-Level Record data elements. ED considers the following data elements to be high risk: • OPEID Number, CIP Code, CIP Year, Credential Level, Published Program Length Measurement, Published Program Length, Program Begin Date, Program Enrollment Effective Date Institutions are responsible for timely reporting, whether they report directly or via a third-party servicer. Institutions must complete and return within 15 days the Enrollment Reporting roster file placed in their Student Aid Internet Gateway (SAIG) (OMB No. 1845-0002) mailboxes sent by ED via NSLDS. An institution determines how often it receives the Enrollment Reporting roster file with the default set at a minimum of every 60 days. Once received, the institution must update for changes in the data elements for the Campus Record and the Program Record identified above, and submit the changes electronically through the batch method, spreadsheet submittal, or the NSLDS website (Pell, 34 CFR 690.83(b)(2); FFEL, 34 CFR 682.610; Direct Loan, 34 CFR 685.309: Perkins 34 CFR 674.19(f). Additionally, in accordance with 2 CFR 200.303, the University shall maintain internal controls over federal programs designed to provide reasonable assurance that transactions are executed in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award that could have a direct and material effect on a federal program. Condition and Context: The University utilizes the National Student Clearinghouse (the Clearinghouse) as a service provider for transmissions of its enrollment reporting changes to the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS). The University receives the NSLDS Reporting Roster and updates it for changes in student status. The file is sent to the Clearinghouse who transmits the updated information to NSLDS. Of the 25 students with enrollment changes we selected for test work, we noted that for one student, the University did not report the student’s status or enrollment change accurately to NSLDS within the required 60 days period. The student identified was reported 110 days late. After further analysis provided by the University, there were a total of 21 students who were impacted by this issue. Cause: For the aforementioned 21 students, the University’s internal control processes did not operate consistently to ensure that all enrollment information were submitted timely to NSLDS. Effect: Untimely submission of student enrollment status information affects the determinations that lenders and servicers of students’ loans make related to in-school status, deferments, grace periods, and repayment schedules, as well as the federal government’s payment of interest subsidies. Questioned Costs: None noted. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Identification of whether the Audit Finding was a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend the University review and revise its processes and internal controls to ensure that all enrollment information and status changes are reported to the NSLDS in a timely manner. View of Responsible Officials Management of the University agrees with the recommendation. The corrective action by Corry Unis, Vice President for Enrollment Management and Diana Draper, Executive Director of Financial Aid is as follows: The University has subsequently reported 12 of the 21 students to NSLDS. The University will update the enrollment reporting to NSLDS for the remaining 9 students impacted. The University will determine the principal cause of the discrepancy and implement a combination of controls, monitoring, and training to ensure accuracy and timeliness of future reporting.

2025-007 CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAM: INADEQUATE CONTROLS OVER STUDENT COUNTS AND FOOD INVENTORY MANAGEMENT Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Federal Program Title & ALN: Child Nutrition Cluster - 10.553, 10.555, 10.582 Award Period: 2025 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance Compliance Area: Other - Reporting and Inadequate Controls Questioned Costs: Unknown Condition During our walkthrough of the Child Nutrition Program, we identified inadequate internal controls over both student meal counts and food inventory management. The District does not perform the federally required edit checks that compare daily meal counts to attendance or enrollment records, and meal counts are submitted without an independent review to identify discrepancies or anomalies. This lack of oversight increases the risk of inaccurate reimbursement claims. We also observed that the District does not maintain a formal inventory system for food service operations. Approximately 200 lunch trays are served daily, and ingredients are received every two weeks, with milk delivered weekly. However, canned goods, dry goods, and items stored in freezers are not tracked through any formal inventory procedures, and no regular physical inventory counts are performed. As a result, the District cannot demonstrate that USDA‑funded commodities and purchased food supplies are properly safeguarded, accounted for, or monitored. Criteria 7 CFR 210.8(a)(3) requires School Food Authorities to perform daily edit checks, comparing meal counts to attendance records to prevent claiming more meals than eligible. 2 CFR 200.303 requires entities to establish effective internal controls over federal programs, including accurate reporting and safeguarding of assets. USDA guidance and best practices require schools to maintain ongoing inventory records, conduct regular physical inventory counts, and maintain documentation supporting the use and safeguarding of food commodities. Effect The lack of edit checks increases the risk of inaccurate meal claims, potential overclaims, and questioned costs. The absence of inventory controls increases the risk of waste, loss, theft, spoilage, or misuse of USDA‑funded commodities, and prevents the District from demonstrating compliance with federal requirements. Cause The District has not implemented formal written procedures for meal count edit checks or for maintaining inventory records for food service operations. Staff rely on informal practices and have not been trained or directed to conduct federally required reconciliations or inventory counts.

Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.313(c)(1), non-Federal entities must maintain accurate equipment records for all federally acquired equipment. At a minimum, the equipment records must include: • A description of the equipment • A serial number or other identification number • The source of funding for the equipment, including the Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN) • Who holds title • The acquisition date and cost • The location, use, and condition of the equipment • Any ultimate disposition data, including date of disposal and sales price, if applicable In accordance with 2 CFR 200.313(d)(2) requires entities to verify the existence, current utilization, and continued need for federally funded equipment through physical inventories conducted at least once every two years and to reconcile those results with the equipment records. In accordance with 2 CFR 200.303, it is emphasized that entities maintain complete and accurate equipment listings to demonstrate proper safeguarding, tracking, and continued use of equipment acquired under Federal awards Furthermore, in accordance with 2 CFR 200.303(a), non-Federal entities must 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 the 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). Conditions Found We noted that the College does not maintain a complete and accurate equipment listing for federally acquired equipment. Specifically, the equipment listing did not consistently or correctly include all required data elements outlined in 2 CFR 200.313(c). Data elements that were missing from the listing included serial number, the source of funding for the equipment, including the FAIN, and the location. The data element that was incorrectly maintained on the equipment listing was acquisition date and cost as one instance was identified where the cost of acquiring an item on the equipment listing did not agree to the College’s system of record. Additionally, we noted the College does not have a process in place to reconcile the results of the bi-annual inventory count to the property record listing in order to reflect any changes or discrepancies resulting from the count. Cause The condition resulted from the absence of formally documented policies and procedures governing the maintenance and periodic review of the federally acquired equipment listing and the requirement of reconciling the federally acquired equipment to the property record listing after conducting a bi-annual physical inventory count. Also, the College has not implemented controls to ensure that required equipment information is consistently recorded, updated, and reviewed in accordance with Federal regulations. Possible Asserted Effect Failure to maintain a complete and accurate equipment listing can result in federally acquired equipment not being properly tracked, safeguarded, or used in accordance with Federal award requirements. The lack of accurate equipment records increases the risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of Federal awards. Additionally, the inability to locate equipment, inaccurate equipment records and undetected loss or misuse of federally funded equipment. Moreover, the absence of formal policies could result in federal noncompliance. Questioned Costs No questioned costs were identified. Statistical Sampling The sample was not intended to be and was not a statistically valid sample. Repeat Finding The conditions found do not constitute a repeat finding from the prior year. Recommendation We recommend that the College establish and implement formal policies and procedures to ensure that a complete and accurate equipment listing for federally acquired equipment is maintained in accordance with 2 CFR 200.303 and 313. This should include ensuring that all required data elements are recorded, that the listing is periodically reviewed and updated, and that results of physical inventories are reconciled to the equipment records to support compliance with Federal award requirements. Views of Responsible Officials The College acknowledges that the federally acquired equipment listing did not include all required data elements outlined in 2 CFR 200.313(c) and did not reconcile it against the bi-annual physical inventory completed. To mitigate the risk of incomplete equipment records for federally acquired equipment, the College is formalizing policies and procedures to ensure required data elements are recorded and maintained, implementing a periodic review process to update the equipment listing, and establishing a reconciliation process to compare bi-annual physical inventory results to the property records and promptly resolve any discrepancies. These corrective actions are being implemented in fiscal year 2026.

FINDING 2025-002 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY2024, FY2025 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation to ensure compliance with the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirement. Form 9 Expenditures The School Corporation submits a Form 9 to the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) every six months. The expenditures reported on the Form 9 are used by the IDOE to calculate the School Corporation's indirect cost rate. The rate represents the percentage of indirect costs (overhead, administration) that can be recovered from federal grant funds, derived from the cost incurred in a previous fiscal year. As such, the amounts submitted to the IDOE in fiscal year 2022-2023 are to be used in the indirect costs computation for 2024-2025 and are tested to ensure they were recorded properly in the School Corporation's records as to the account or object codes. A test of 53 disbursement line items were sampled from the IDOE Form 9 submitted for 2022-2023 totaling $935,432 and 3 line items were not properly supported by the School Corporation's records. The School Corporation's ledger was filtered for the fund, account, and object code reported on the Form 9, and we determined 3 line item expense variances as follows: INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 17 MICHIGAN CITY AREA SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued)  There were 2 expense line items under reported on the Form 9 by a total of $1,604.  There was 1 expense line item over reported on the Form 9 by $8. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance over the Form 9 expenditures was isolated to 2024-2025. School Corporation Expenditures - Indirect Cost Rate In a test of 50 School Corporation expenditures, we were unable to determine if 9 expenditures totaling $29,948.32 were posted to the proper account and object codes within the accounting records to ensure the underlying data used by the IDOE to calculate the indirect cost rate was accurate. Records to support these 9 expenditures could not be located for audit. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance over the School Corporation expenditures were a systemic issue throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "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). . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed . . ." Cause The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance. The School Corporation did not ensure that supporting documentation was maintained and made available for audit, as related to the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirement. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the School Corporation cannot ensure compliance with the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirement. As a result, amounts reported to the oversight agency were not accurately reported. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 18 MICHIGAN CITY AREA SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure the data submitted on the Form 9's and underlying expenditures are properly documented and retained for audit. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.

FINDING 2025-003 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Level of Effort/Maintenance of Effort Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Special Education Grants to States Assistance Listings Number: 84.027 Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): 24611-036-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context An effective internal control system was not designed or implemented at the School Corporation to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Level of Effort - Maintenance of Effort Maintenance of Effort (MOE) is a district-level test that determines whether the School Corporation is providing a consistent level of financial support to public schools from year to year. This rule ensures that the School Corporation does not use special education funds to shore up reductions in state and local support for public education. The Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) performs the maintenance of effort calculation utilizing Form 9 information provided by the School Corporation from the prior year. As such, the amounts submitted to the IDOE in the prior year to be used in the computation are tested to ensure they were recorded properly in the School Corporation's records as to the account or object code. A test of 53 disbursement line items were sampled from the IDOE Form 9 submitted for fiscal year 2022-2023 totaling $935,432, and 3 line items were not properly supported by the School Corporation's records. The School Corporation's ledger was filtered for the fund, account, and object code reported on the Form 9, and we determined the 3 line item expense variances as follows:  There were 2 expense line items under reported on the Form 9 by a total of $1,604.  There was 1 expense line item over reported on the Form 9 by $8. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 MICHIGAN CITY AREA SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The ineffective internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the 2022-2023 Form 9 information used to calculate the MOE for the 2023-2024 grant award. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "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). . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed . . ." Cause The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance. The School Corporation did not ensure that supporting documentation was maintained and made available for audit, as related to the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the School Corporation cannot ensure compliance with the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. As a result, amounts reported to the oversight agency were not accurately reported. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure the data submitted on the Form 9's and underlying expenditures are properly documented. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.

FINDING 2025-004 Subject: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - Special Tests and Provisions - Annual Report Card, High School Graduation Rate Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies Assistance Listings Number: 84.010 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S010A220014, S010A230014, S010A240014 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Special Tests and Provisions - Annual Report Card, High School Graduation Rate Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Special Tests and Provisions - Annual Report Card, High School Graduation Rate compliance requirement. The School Corporation must report graduation rate data for all public high schools within the School Corporation using the four-year adjusted cohort rate. To remove a student from the cohort, the School Corporation must confirm the reason for removal in writing. Additionally, required documentation for each removal type must be retained by the School Corporation. The School Corporation did not ensure that there was written documentation retained from the receiving school for students removed from the cohort for mobility reasons. Of the 20 students tested, 3 did not have the required supporting documentation to substantiate removal from the cohort for mobility reasons. Of those, 2 students were foreign exchange students, and the School Corporation did not retain a school acceptance form or formal agreement with the exchange organization. Another student was incarcerated, and the School Corporation did not have a court order or documentation from the Indiana Department of Corrections. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "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). . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 MICHIGAN CITY AREA SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 20 USC 7801(23)(B) states: "To remove a student from a cohort, a school or local educational agency shall require documentation, or obtain documentation from the State educational agency, to confirm that the student has transferred out, emigrated to another country, or transferred to a prison or juvenile facility, or is deceased." Cause The School Corporation did not have effective internal controls to ensure required documentation to support the reason for a student's removal from the high school graduation cohort for mobility reasons was prepared and retained. Effect Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the repayment of federal funds. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management evaluate the internal control policies and procedures to ensure the proper documentation is maintained for students that are removed from the cohort. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.

FINDING 2025-005 Subject: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund - Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.425D, 84.425U Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425D210013, S425U210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2023-005. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 MICHIGAN CITY AREA SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Condition and Context The COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) grant was established by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act to respond to the Coronavirus outbreak and assist schools in creating healthy learning environments, return students to classrooms, and address local needs. The ESF grant was further funded by the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations (CRRSA) Act and the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act. The School Corporation did not have effective internal controls in place over the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirement. A sample of 13 payroll claims paid from the School Corporation's ESF grant were selected for testing. Of the sample, 6 employee pay rates could not be verified to a School Board-approved, allowable hourly pay rate for a high dosage tutor position. High dosage tutors were paid anywhere from $20 to $77 an hour. The School Corporation was unable to provide documentation that the School Board approved a pay rate for the high dosage tutor positions during the audit period. The total amount paid to high dosage tutors during the audit period was $472,354, which were considered questioned costs. In addition, the School Corporation paid a consulting firm to provide general support to the finance department. The expenditures were deemed unallowable as there was no documentation available that the consultants were assisting the School Corporation in preventing, preparing for, and responding to COVID-19. The total amount expended to the consultant during the audit period was $514,156, which were considered questioned costs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the costs noted above for the ESSER II and ESSER III grants. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "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). . . ." 2 CFR 200.334 states in part: "Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for the Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annual, from the date of submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 MICHIGAN CITY AREA SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "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 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. (h) Administrative closeout costs may be incurred until the due date of the final report(s). If incurred, these costs must be liquidated prior to the due date of the final report(s) and charged to the final budget period of the award unless otherwise specified by the Federal agency. All other costs must be incurred during the approved budget period. At its discretion, the Federal agency is authorized to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods. See § 200.308(g)(3). 2 CFR 200.430(i)(1) states in part: "Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity, not exceeding 100% of compensated activities (for IHE, this per the IHE's definition of IBS); . . . (vii) Support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 24 MICHIGAN CITY AREA SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 2 CFR 200.404 states: "A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non- Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to: (a) Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award. (b) The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) Market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area. (d) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government. (e) Whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost." 34 CFR 76.731 states: "A State and a subgrantee shall keep records to show its compliance with program requirements." Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Pub. L. No. 116-260, 134 Stat. 1924 (2020) states in part: "For an additional amount for "Education Stabilization Fund".to remain available through September 30, 2022, to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically, or internationally . . ." Cause Payroll records were incomplete as the School Corporation was unable to provide documentation that all rates of pay were approved by the School Board. The School Corporation did not include the consultants above in the budget submitted as part of the grant application, and so the School Corporation did not get the required prior approval for the purchases. Effect Without proper documentation, the allowability of the ESF grant expenditures cannot be substantiated, creating a risk that unallowable costs may be charged to the federal grant. Additionally, we could not determine how the expenditures met the purpose of the program. Questioned Costs We identified $986,510 in known questioned costs as described above in the Condition and Context. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 25 MICHIGAN CITY AREA SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Recommendation We recommend that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure rates of pay are approved by the School Board and adequately documented and that costs are allowable. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.

FINDING 2025-006 Subject: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund - Equipment and Real Property Management Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.425D, 84.425U Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425D210013, S425U210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Equipment and Real Property Management Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2023-006. Condition and Context The School Corporation had not properly designed a system of internal controls to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Equipment and Real Property Management compliance requirement. The School Corporation did not have any policies or procedures in place to ensure a detailed capital asset listing was completed for the audit period and that the listing contained all the required information. During the audit period, the School Corporation purchased equipment totaling $11,495,065 with COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund funds. However, the purchased equipment was not included on a capital asset listing or physical inventory. Due to the lack of a detailed capital asset listing, the equipment was not adequately safeguarded or maintained. The School Corporation should include the following required information in the detailed capital asset listing for each capital asset purchased with federal funds: a description of the property, a serial number or other identification number, the source of funding for the property (including the federal award identification number (FAIN)), who holds title, the acquisition date, cost of the property, percentage of federal participation in the project costs for the federal award under which the property was acquired, the location, and use and condition of the property. A capital asset listing is to be maintained for assets purchased that exceed the School Corporation's capitalization threshold. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period for the ESSER II and ESSER III grants. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 26 MICHIGAN CITY AREA SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "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). . . ." 2 CFR 200.313(d) states in part: "Management requirements. Procedures for managing equipment (including replacement equipment), whether acquired in whole or in part under a Federal award, until disposition takes place will, as a minimum, meet the following requirements: (1) Property records must be maintained that include a description of the property, a serial number or other identification number, the source of funding for the property (including the FAIN), who holds title, the acquisition date, and cost of the property, percentage of Federal participation in the project costs for the Federal award under which the property was acquired, the location, use and condition of the property, and any ultimate disposition data including the date of disposal and sale price of the property. (2) A physical inventory of the property must be taken and the results reconciled with the property records at least once every two years. (3) A control system must be developed to ensure adequate safeguards to prevent loss, damage, or theft of the property. Any loss, damage, or theft must be investigated. (4) Adequate maintenance procedures must be developed to keep the property in good condition. . . ." Cause The School Corporation did not have policies or procedures in place to complete an inventory or maintain a fixed asset detail report. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, not all assets purchased with federal dollars were added to a capital asset listing. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 27 MICHIGAN CITY AREA SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure asset records include all the necessary information, new assets are properly added, and any discrepancies are reconciled. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.

2025-101 Funds to be Returned Worksheets Not Documented as Being Independently Reviewed Assistance Listing Number: 84.063 Program Title: Federal Pell Grant Program Compliance Requirement: Special Tests and Provisions – Return of Title IV Funds Federal Agency: United States Department of Education FAIN and year: P063P203385, 2024-2025 Finding Type: Material Weakness in Internal Control Known Questioned Costs: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR section 200.303 requires that nonfederal entities receiving federal awards establish and maintain internal control over the federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards. Condition: Return of Funds R2T4 and Pell Grant Early Completer Re-Proration worksheets were calculated and funds properly returned, however the worksheets to determine the return of the funds were not signed off as having been independently reviewed and approved. While calculations are reviewed by someone other than the preparer, no documentation of the review is evident. Cause: Haney Technical School (School) staff review the worksheets but have not set up a formal policy where the independent reviewer signs off and dates the review of the worksheet. Effect: Incorrect amounts could be returned in error. Recommendation: The School should set up a formal policy where worksheets for the return of Title IV funds should include a signature and date of both the preparer and the reviewer. Management Response: See attached Corrective Action Plan.

2025-102 Return of Title IV Funds Not Made Within the Required Timeline Assistance Listing Number: 84.063 Program Title: Federal Pell Grant Program Compliance Requirement: Special Tests and Provisions – Return of Title IV Funds Federal Agency: United States Department of Education FAIN and year: P063P203385, 2024-2025 Finding Type: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Known Questioned Costs: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR section 200.303 requires that nonfederal entities receiving federal awards establish and maintain internal control over the federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards. Awards. Institutions are responsible for returning funds to students and Title IV programs as appropriate if students withdraw, drop out or are expelled from their program of study within a 45-day period from the date of withdrawal. Condition: Title IV funds for two of the nine students selected for testing for the return of Title IV funds were returned to the Department of Education after the 45-day time period. Cause: Human error resulted in delays in returning funds to the Department of Education. The controls in place are manual only and did not operate to prevent the late returns. Effect: Noncompliance with the return of funds could result in future loss of Pell Award funding. Recommendation: The School should implement a process possibly with the use of a software program that would identify when funds are due back based on the student’s withdrawal date. Management Response: See attached Corrective Action Plan.

2025-103 Multi-factor Authentication Not Required When Accessing Student Information Assistance Listing Number: 84.063 Program Title: Federal Pell Grant Program Compliance Requirement: Special Tests and Provisions – Gramm-Leach Bliley Act- Student Information Security Federal Agency: United States Department of Education FAIN and year: P063P203385, 2024-2025 Finding Type: Material Weakness in Internal Control Known Questioned Costs: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR section 200.303 requires that nonfederal entities receiving federal awards establish and maintain internal control over the federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards. The institution’s written information security policy must address the implementation of safeguards identified in 16 CFR 314.4(c) which includes the implementation of multi-factor authentication for anyone accessing student information on the institution’s system. Condition: Multi-factor authentication has not been implemented on the District’s system in regards to access of student information. Cause: The security parameters for accessing student information do not include multi-factor authentication in conjunction with passwords when accessing student information from the District’s information system. Effect: Student information could be inappropriately accessed. Recommendation: The requirement for multi-factor authentication policy should be put in place. Management Response: See attached Corrective Action Plan.

Prior Year Finding: N/A Federal Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Pass-Through Agency: Maryland Department of Environment Federal Program Name: Clean Water State Revolving Fund Assistance Listing Number: 66.458 Award Number and Year: Urban Storm Water Retrofit (7/1/2024-6/30/2025) Compliance Requirement: Suspension and Debarment Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Compliance, Other Matters Criteria or specific requirement: Compliance: Recipients and subrecipients are prohibited from contracting with or making subawards under covered transactions to parties that are suspended, or debarred. “"Covered transactions" include contracts for goods and services awarded under a nonprocurement transaction (e.g., grant or cooperative agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000 or meet certain other criteria as specified in 2 CFR section 180.220. All nonprocurement transactions entered into by a pass-through entity (i.e., subawards to subrecipients), irrespective of award amount, are considered covered transactions, unless they are exempt as provided in 2 CFR section 180.215. When a recipient or subrecipient enters into a covered transaction with an entity at a lower tier, the recipient or subrecipient must verify that the entity, as defined in 2 CFR section 180.995 and agency adopting regulations, is not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transaction. This verification may be accomplished by: (1) checking the System for Award Management (SAM) Exclusions maintained by the General Services Administration (GSA) and available at SAM.gov (2) collecting a certification from the entity, or (3) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that entity (2 CFR section 180.300). Control: Per 2 CFR section 200.303(a), a 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. These internal controls should comply 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). Condition: The suspension and debarment status of vendors with expenditures exceeding $25,000 was not verified as required by federal regulations. Context: For five of five transactions selected for testing, the County did not verify the suspension and debarment status before entering into covered transactions with the vendors. Cause: County's procedures and internal controls over suspension and debarment are not sufficient to ensure that all vendors’ suspension and debarment status was verified timely. Effect: Failure to verify the suspension and debarment status of vendors may result in the procurement of goods or services from vendors that are suspended or debarred and result in unallowable expenditures charged to the program. Questioned costs: There are no questioned costs related to this finding as the vendors were not federally suspended or debarred. Recommendation: The County should ensure policies and procedures include the three options for determining suspension and debarment status listed in 2 CFR 180.300 and that controls are sufficient to ensure that the suspension and debarment status is verified for all vendors prior to entering into covered transactions. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.

Prior Year Finding: 2024-001 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Pass-Through Agency: Maryland Department of Aging Federal Program Name: Aging Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 93.044, 93.045 Award Number and Year: 650123/15, 650223/15 (10/1/2022-9/30/2024); 650124/15, 650224/15 (10/1/2023-9/30/2025); 650125/15, 650225/15 (10/1/2024-9/30/2026) Compliance Requirement: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Compliance, Other Matters Criteria or specific requirement: Compliance: Per Maryland Department of Aging guidance, the County is required to submit quarterly financials forms outlining grant spending progress, matching requirements, budget categories, and any other revenue sources for all open grants. Control: Per 2 CFR section 200.303(a), a 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. These internal controls should comply 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). Condition: Prince George’s County, Maryland (the County) did not submit required information on its quarterly reports to the Maryland Department of Aging during FY25. Context: For eight of eight quarterly reports selected for testing, the County did not report required information in the section related to matching funds. The County omitted reporting matching expenditures even though local funds were incurred to meet the required match. Cause: The County’s policies and procedures were not sufficient to ensure that all required information was included in the reports submitted to the Maryland Department of Aging. Internal controls did not prevent or detect the omission. Effect: The County was not in compliance with reporting requirements. Questioned costs: None noted. Recommendation: We recommend that the County develop internal controls and procedures to ensure that all required information is submitted with the quarterly reports to the Maryland Department of Aging. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.

2025-001: Department of Health and Human Services - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Federal Assistance Listing #93.558; Pass Through Virginia Department of Social Services, Pass Through Entity Identifying Number BEN-21-054. Criteria: The Organization should have processes and procedures in place to keep and maintain client eligibility records, per 2 CFR 200.303 and 2 CFR 200.334. Condition: During our audit, we noted that the Organization was unable to locate records substantiating the eligibility of clients served. Context: During testing, the Organization was unable to find supporting eligibility records for 35 out of the 53 samples that received services as part of a federal program. The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Cause/Effect: Internal control processes over proper maintenance of clients’ records were not operating effectively, causing documentation to not be located. Questioned Costs: $40,400 calculated based on the dollar amount submitted for reimbursement for each item tested without proper eligibility records. Identification of Repeat Finding: Repeat Finding 2024-001. Recommendation: We recommend procedures are implemented to ensure proper maintenance of client records. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the recommendation and has implemented corrective action as outlined in the corrective action plan.

2025-002: Department of Health and Human Services - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Federal Assistance Listing # 93.558; Pass Through Virginia Department of Social Services, Pass Through Entity Identifying Number BEN-21-054. Criteria: The Organization should have effective policies and procedures in place to ensure there is proper documentation supporting funds were used in compliance with the federal award, per 2 CFR 200.303 and 2 CFR 200.334. Condition: During our audit, it was noted that there was not an effective process in place to keep and maintain the required records to support pay-for-performance outputs and outcomes. Context: The Organization was unable to provide documentation supporting the allowability of 7 of the 52 samples selected for testing. Cause/Effect: Internal control processes over maintenance of records supporting pay-for-performance outcomes and outputs were not operating effectively from July 2024 through June 2025. Questioned Costs: $7,200 calculated based on the dollar amount submitted for reimbursement for each item tested without proper records supporting the required outcome or output was met. Identification of Repeat Finding: 2024-002 Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization implements a review process to ensure that documentation is retained to support pay-for-performance outputs and outcomes submitted to the grantor. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the recommendation and has implemented corrective action as outlined in the corrective action plan.

2025-003: Department of Health and Human Services - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Federal Assistance Listing #93.558; Pass Through Fairfax County, Pass Through Entity Identifying Number 4400012652. Criteria: The Organization should have processes and procedures in place to keep and maintain client eligibility records, per 2 CFR 200.303 and 2 CFR 200.334. Condition: During our audit, we noted that the Organization was not performing procedures to ensure eligibility of clients participating in the program and thus were unable to locate records substantiating the eligibility of clients served. Context: During testing, the Organization was unable to support eligibility for 7 out of the 7 samples that received services as part of a federal program. The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Cause/Effect: Internal control processes over proper processes for eligibility and maintenance of clients’ records were not operating effectively, causing documentation to not be located. Questioned Costs: Unknown. Identification of Repeat Finding: N/A Recommendation: We recommend procedures are implemented to ensure only eligible clients participate in the federal program and client records are maintained. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the recommendation and has implemented corrective action as outlined in the corrective action plan.

Finding 2025-002 – U.S. Department of Education (ED), TRIO Programs (material weakness): Information on Federal Programs – TRIO Upward Bound Assistance Listing, FAL No. 84.047, June 30, 2025 Criteria – Federal regulations require that at least two-thirds (67%) of participants served by the TRIO Upward Bound Program be low-income and first-generation college students. 20 U.S.C. § 1070a-11 34 CFR § 645.3 (Definitions); 34 CFR § 645.11 (Participant eligibility and selection). In addition, recipients are required to maintain accurate eligibility documentation and report complete and reliable participant data in the annual performance report in accordance with 2 CFR § 200.303 and 2 CFR § 200.328. Condition – The TRIO Upward Bound Program did not meet the federally required two-thirds first-generation/low-income participant threshold. The annual performance report reflected that only 51% of participants were identified as first-generation and/or low-income. During testing of participant eligibility documentation, the participant roster reflected that only 58% of participants met the first-generation and/or low-income eligibility requirement. Cause – The condition appears to be the result of insufficient internal controls over participant eligibility determination and monitoring, including: a) inadequate review procedures to ensure eligibility requirements were met prior to participant enrollment; b) lack of ongoing monitoring to ensure continued compliance with the two-thirds eligibility requirement throughout the program year and c) insufficient reconciliation between eligibility documentation and performance reporting data. Effect – Failure to meet the statutory eligibility threshold places the program out of compliance with federal requirements and may result in: a) questioned eligibility of program participants, b) increased risk of enforcement actions, including corrective action plans or repayment of federal funds.; c) possible loss or reduction of future funding and d) risk of program eligibility. Repeat Finding – Yes. Although this is a repeat finding for Upward Bound, Student Support Services was resolved in the current year. Questioned Costs – Questioned costs could not be reasonably determined for this finding due to the inability to directly associate program expenditures with individual ineligible participants. Auditor’s Perspective – From the auditor’s perspective, this finding represents material noncompliance with federal eligibility and reporting requirements for the TRIO Upward Bound Program. Federal statutes and regulations require that at least two-thirds (67%) of program participants be low-income and first-generation college students. The program’s failure to meet this threshold both in reported data (51%) and in tested eligibility documentation (58%) demonstrates a systemic breakdown in compliance, rather than an isolated or clerical error. The discrepancy between eligibility documentation and the annual performance report further indicates weaknesses in internal controls over compliance, as required by 2 CFR § 200.303. Accurate eligibility determination is a core program requirement, directly tied to the program’s statutory purpose and funding authorization. Noncompliance with this requirement undermines assurance that federal funds were used to serve the intended population. Auditor’s Perspective – (continued) Because eligibility compliance affects the allowability of participant-related costs, the inability to demonstrate that the required proportion of participants met eligibility criteria creates an elevated risk of questioned or disallowed costs. While questioned costs could not be reasonably quantified, the scope and pervasiveness of the condition support classification of this finding as material. Absent corrective action, the program remains exposed to continued noncompliance, increased federal oversight, and potential enforcement actions by the U.S. Department of Education. Strengthening eligibility controls, monitoring, and reporting reconciliation is necessary to restore compliance and reduce future audit risk. Auditor’s Recommendation – We recommend that management: a) strengthen internal controls over participant eligibility determination, including documented review and approval procedures; b) implement periodic monitoring to ensure the two-thirds first-generation/low-income require-ment is met throughout the program year; c) Ensure accurate and consistent reporting between eligibility records and annual performance reports and d) provide staff training on federal eligibility requirements for the TRIO Upward Bound Program. View of Responsible Officials – The correct 2/3 requirement percentage from the 2024-2025 TRIO Upward Bound APR is 63%; the referenced 51% was from the 2023-2024 APR. The TRIO Upward Bound Program’s fiscal year for 2024-2025 was September 1, 2024, to August 31, 2025, which is different from the College’s fiscal year. A roster was requested and submitted reflecting TRIO Upward Bound participants during the College’s fiscal year, July 1, 2024 -June 30, 2025. The submitted roster did not reflect the participants for the Program’s 2024-2025 fiscal year. Failure to meet the 2/3 requirement stems from ongoing challenges in recruiting Program participants. Recruitment has been and continues to be a challenge for TRIO Programs nationwide since the pandemic. The TRIO Upward Bound Staff are very knowledgeable about Program eligibility and documentation requirements. A thorough review of eligibility is completed to ensure applicants meet at least one (and preferably both) eligibility criteria PRIOR TO acceptance. The TRIO Upward Bound Program received funding for FY2025 (September 1, 2025, - August 31, 2026) in the full amount of $550,864.00. The receipt of a Non-Competing Continuation (NCC) Grant Award Notice means the U.S. Department of Education is giving approval to allow the Paine College TRIO Upward Bound Program to continue serving students without any stipulations to the Program or College. The Program is operating under normal terms and conditions. Program Staff is working diligently to recruit more students to ensure compliance with the 2/3 eligibility requirement for the 2025-2026 program/fiscal year.

2025-004: U.S. Department of Education Passed through State of Nevada Department of Education Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies, 84.010 Eligibility Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance Grant Award Number: Affects all grant awards included under assistance listing number 84.010 on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effective internal control 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. Local educational agencies are required to equitably allocate Part A funds to each participating school, in rank order, on the basis of the number of public-school children from low-income families residing in the area or attending the school (20 USC 6313). Condition: In certain instances, the amounts disbursed to each school was not in accordance with the allocation. In addition, an amendment was made to the original allocation and was not equitably distributed. Cause: Elko County School District did not have sufficient internal controls to ensure eligibility determinations of the amounts disbursed were being appropriately followed. Effect: Noncompliance with eligibility requirements may not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: Eligibility requirements were tested as a whole for the District. It was noted that there was an amended allocation of $6,228.22 that was not equitably distributed across the eleven eligible schools. In addition, $32,657.07 of the funds were not properly disbursed to the schools in accordance with the allocation or carried forward into the following year’s budget. Repeat Finding from Prior Year(s): No Recommendation: We recommend Elko County School District enhance internal controls to ensure eligibility requirements are being followed, specifically regarding allocations and disbursement of funds. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding.

2025-005: U.S. Department of Education Passed through State of Nevada Department of Education Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies, 84.010 Matching, Level of Effort, and Earmarking Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance Grant Award Number: Affects all grant awards included under assistance listing number 84.010 on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effective internal control 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. Condition: Underlying supporting documentation that the Elko County School District compiled to monitor local compliance with level of effort requirements was not maintained. Cause: Elko County School District did not have sufficient internal controls to ensure level of effort tracking was maintained and reviewed. Effect: Noncompliance with level of effort requirements may not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: Underlying supporting documentation for monitoring was not maintained. A recalculation of the level of effort requirements, as applicable, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2025, was performed and no issues of noncompliance were noted. Repeat Finding from Prior Year(s): Yes, prior year finding 2024-005. Recommendation: We recommend Elko County School District enhance internal controls to ensure information used in the level of effort monitoring is maintained. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding.

2025-006: U.S. Department of Education Passed through State of Nevada Department of Education Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies, 84.010 Special Tests and Provisions – Annual Report Card, High School Graduation Rate Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance Grant Award Number: Affects all grant awards included under assistance listing number 84.010 on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effective internal control 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. Pursuant to 20 USC 2011h, the District is required to report graduation rate data for all public high schools for the District for each graduating cohort. To remove a student from the cohort, the District must confirm, in writing, that the student transferred out, emigrated to another country, transferred to a prison or juvenile facility, or is deceased. Condition: Underlying supporting documentation that the Elko County School District was reviewing the reporting for removal of a student from the cohort was missing in some instances. Cause: Elko County School District did not have sufficient internal controls to ensure all documentation for the removal of students from the cohort was maintained. Effect: Noncompliance with the special test for annual report grade, high school graduation rate requirements may not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of sixty-eight removals out of 617 was selected for testing. Seventeen of the sixty-eight sample selections did not maintain approval documentation. Repeat Finding from Prior Year(s): No Recommendation: We recommend Elko County School District enhance internal controls to support the review of information used to support the removal of students from a cohort is maintained. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding.

2025-004 Impact Aid Application Controls CFDA Title: Impact Aid CFDA Number: 84.041 Federal Award Number: N/A Federal Agency: Department of Education Pass-through Entity: N/A Condition: The District does not have an internal control system in place to ensure that supporting documentation is maintained to support the Impact Aid Applications for the elementary and high school. Context: We requested the supporting documentation to test the compliance of reported students counts on the elementary and high school impact aid applications, but the District had a difficult time providing the supporting documentation and/or could not provide it at all. Criteria: (1) 2 CFR section 200.303 requires that the District establish and maintain an effective internal control system over the federal award to provide reasonable assurance that the District is managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award. (2) Application for Impact Aid - Section 7003 (OMB No. 1810-0687) - Each year an LEA must submit this application, which provides the following information: counts of federally connected children in various categories, membership and average daily attendance data, and information on expenditures for children with disabilities. This form is in the Impact Aid Grant System, which does not have a public link, therefore school districts will need to provide a copy to the auditor. Effect: The District risk of noncompliance with federal programs increases if documentation is not maintained to support those compliance requirements. In addition, we found variances in both total enrollment reported, as well as children living on Indian lands. There was no support for the children with disabilities reported on the applications. Cause: The District did not establish and maintain an adequate internal control system ensure that supporting documentation is maintained to support the number reported on the application. Recommendation: We recommend that the District review its internal control systems over its Impact Aid application, and ensure that the document management systems are adequate to ensure appropriate filing of supporting documentation to the applications are maintained so that information can be found in future years.

2 CFR § 3474.1 provides that the Department of Education (ODE) adopts the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance in 2 CFR part 200. Thus, this part gives regulatory effect to the OMB guidance and supplements the guidance as needed for the ODE, except as otherwise noted in that section. 2 CFR § 200.303 states a recipient and subrecipient must establish, document, and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the recipient or subrecipient is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Due to deficiencies in internal policies and procedures, the Academy did not approve three out of six (50%) of invoices that were for allowable costs and activities prior to being paid. Failure to have the appropriate controls in place may result in the Academy using federal funds for unallowable costs or activities. The Academy should develop internal control policies over Federal awards to help ensure compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, passed through Barren County Fiscal Court ALN 14.251 – Economic Development Initiative, Community Project Funding, and Miscellaneous Grants Contract No. B-22-CP-KY-0347 (2022) and B-23-CP-KY-0612 (2023) Criteria: 2 CFR 180 subpart C includes the responsibilities of persons who participate in covered transactions. 2 CFR 200.303 requires recipients and subrecipients to establish, document, and maintain effective internal controls over Federal awards. Condition: During our audit procedures, we noted there was no process in place to ensure vendors were not on a suspension or debarment list, and were eligible to be reimbursed with federal grant funds. Cause: Certain internal controls were not in place to prevent or detect and correct payments made to suspended or debarred vendors. Effect: Federal funds could be used to reimburse payments made to vendors that are suspended or debarred. Questioned Costs: None. Recommendation: We recommend management obtain a greater understanding of the suspension and debarment contained in 2 CFR 180, and implement a review process whereby vendors are periodically checked for suspension and debarment. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management concurs with the finding and as a result, the Authority will implement procedures to include verifying new and existing vendors are not on suspension and debarment listings.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, passed through Barren County Fiscal Court ALN 14.251 – Economic Development Initiative, Community Project Funding, and Miscellaneous Grants Contract No. B-22-CP-KY-0347 (2022) and B-23-CP-KY-0612 (2023) Criteria: 2 CFR 200.327 requires non-Federal entities to include a provision for compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations. The Davis-Bason Act requires contractors to pay prevailing wages on federally funded or assisted construction projects, and requires non-Federal entities entering into such construction contracts to collect weekly certified payroll reports for all weeks in which wages are paid to construction workers. 2 CFR 200.303 requires recipients and subrecipients to establish, document, and maintain effective controls over Federal awards. Condition: During our audit procedures, we noted the Authority did not notify contractors that Federal funds would be in payments. As such, contractors did not include federal prevailing wage language in their bids/contracts, and did not provide weekly certified payroll reports to the Authority. Cause: Management was unaware of the requirements of prevailing wage for federal construction grants, and as such, did not communicate to contractors that federal funds would be utilized. Effect: The Authority was not in compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act and related regulations. Questioned Costs: Unable to determine. Recommendation: We recommend management obtain a greater understanding of the Davis-Bacon Act, and implement a review process whereby contracts and invoices are not approved without appropriate prevailing wage consideration and certified payrolls. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management concurs with the finding and as a result, the Authority will gain a greater understanding of HUD grants, and will implement a review process to ensure prevailing wage requirements are considered prior to approving contracts and invoices.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, passed through Barren County Fiscal Court ALN 14.251 – Economic Development Initiative, Community Project Funding, and Miscellaneous Grants Contract No. B-22-CP-KY-0347 (2022) and B-23-CP-KY-0612 (2023) Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 requires recipients and subrecipients to establish, document, and maintain effective internal controls over Federal awards. Condition: During our audit procedures, we noted there was no process in place to ensure periodic reporting was submitted timely and accurately. Cause: Certain internal controls were not in place to prevent or detect lack of periodic reporting, or inaccurate reporting. Effect: Federal funds could be withheld if periodic reports are not submitted, or are inaccurate. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: We recommend management implements a review process whereby there is a review control over the submission of period reports. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management concurs with the finding and as a result, the Authority will implement a review process over required periodic reporting.

2025-003 Allowability of Rental Assistance Payments – Landlord Verifications U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Continuum of Care Program—Assistance Listing No. 14.267 Hennepin County Contract HS00001366; Grant Period – Year ended June 30, 2025 Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 requires non-Federal entities to establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards to provide reasonable assurance that the entity is managing the awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Agate Housing and Services, Inc.’s internal control policies require landlord verifications to be completed prior to submitting a rental assistance payment, as evidenced by a completed and filed W- 9 form. Condition: Documentation to support that Agate Housing and Services, Inc.’s landlord verification process was completed prior to the disbursement of rental assistance payments was not available for nine of the forty sampled transactions. Cause: During 2025, Agate Housing and Services, Inc. digitized its inventory of W-9 forms and retained only the most recent W-9 for each vendor. Older versions of W-9 forms were purged, and any missing W-9 documentation was likely lost during this conversion process. Effect: The landlord verification process is a key internal control to ensure the legitimacy and existence of landlords and to help prevent fraud or mismanagement in the disbursement of Federal funds. As a result of missing documentation, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that landlord verifications were performed prior rental assistance payments being made. Context: A statistically valid sample of 40 rental assistance payment transactions totaling $52,138 was selected for testing from a population of 393 transactions totaling $561,523. The audit identified nine payments to landlords that were disbursed prior to documentation evidencing completion of landlord verification. Known Questioned Costs: None. In five of the nine instances, landlord verification documentation was obtained after-the-fact, supporting the legitimacy of the payments. In the remaining four instances, the landlords were well-established business entities. No concerns regarding allowability were identified. Identification of Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that Agate Housing and Services, Inc. strengthen internal controls to ensure landlord verifications are completed and required documentation, including W-9 forms, is obtained and retained for all vendors prior to the disbursement of rental assistance funds. Management should implement a procedure to verify that required documentation is present before payment approval. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Agate Housing and Services, Inc. agrees with the finding and is in the process of strengthening its controls over the verification of landlords.

Condition During our audit of the School Board’s financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2025, we encountered circumstances that imposed pervasive limitations on the scope of our audit. Specifically: • We were unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence regarding significant financial statement balances, transactions, and disclosures. • Accounting records and supporting documentation necessary to perform audit procedures were incomplete, unavailable, or unreliable. • Management representations, including written representations required under auditing standards, could not be relied upon due to concerns regarding the reliability of management representations. • These conditions, combined with the risk that management could override internal controls, further limited our ability to obtain evidence that financial reporting was complete and accurate. In addition, these same conditions prevented us from performing required audit procedures over the School Board’s federal programs, including testing of internal control over compliance and compliance with applicable federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of federal awards. As a result, we were unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to support an opinion on compliance for each major federal program. Criteria Uniform Guidance (2 CFR §200.303 and §200.514) requires non-federal entities to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal programs and to provide auditors with access to records and personnel necessary to perform a Single Audit. Uniform Guidance §200.516 requires auditors to report material weaknesses and noncompliance when identified. Cause The conditions described above resulted from inadequate recordkeeping and documentation practices, deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting, and management actions and behaviors that restricted the auditor’s ability to obtain reliable audit evidence and representations. These conditions directly impaired the auditor’s ability to perform planned audit procedures and obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence. These conditions affected both financial reporting and compliance with federal program requirements. Effect Because of these pervasive limitations and the risk of management override, we were unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide a basis for an audit opinion. The potential effects on the financial statements are both material and pervasive, and therefore we issued a disclaimer of opinion on the School Board’s financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2025. For the same reasons, we were also unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to support an opinion on compliance for each of the School Board’s major federal programs and on internal control over compliance. Accordingly, we disclaimed an opinion on compliance for each major federal program under the Single Audit. Context Questioned costs could not be determined due to the disclaimer of opinion. Recommendation We recommend that the School Board take immediate action to strengthen its internal control environment. Specifically, management should: • Ensure that all accounting records and supporting documentation are complete, accurate, and readily available. • Enforce oversight of financial reporting and internal control procedures. • Promote transparency, accountability, and cooperation with auditors to facilitate future audits. • Implement measures to mitigate the risk of management override, including additional supervisory review, approval requirements, and segregation of duties. • Ensure compliance documentation for federal programs is complete, accurate, and available for audit. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action A. OBJECTION On December 29, 2025, following LPSB’s submission of its Response to the Draft Findings of Kolder, Slaven, and Company, LLC (“KS&C”) relating to its 2024-2025 Annual Audit, LPSB received two additional findings characterized as Disclaimers of Opinion. The issuance of these post-response Disclaimers of Opinion regarding the findings highlights KS&C’s apparent lack of objectivity and its failure to adhere to generally accepted government auditing standards in conducting the 24-25 audit. A Disclaimer of Opinion “is expressed when the auditor is unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence on which to base the opinion, and the auditor concludes that the possible effects on the financial statements of undetected misstatements, if any, could be both material and pervasive.”1 According to LLA, “a local auditee that provides for an audit report with a disclaimer of opinion” is regarded as being in noncompliance with its reporting requirements to LLA under the audit law (Louisiana Revised Statute 24:513). LLA further expects the CPA to include in such a report a finding that provides a full explanation for the disclaimer of opinion.2 The two supplemental responses provided are, however, substantially lacking the “full explanation” mandated by the Legislative Auditors for the serious allegations being presented by KS&C. As with its other findings, these recent findings fail to cite any specific conditions present during the audit period that would have precluded KS&C from forming a conclusion. Therefore, as with the original findings, LPSB, on January 6, 2026, again requested that KS&C provide supporting evidence for its claim that it was unable to obtain “evidence regarding significant financial statement balances, transactions, and disclosures.” KS&C responded by stating that these new findings were based on Finding 16 - Invoices Paid Without Sufficient Supporting Detail (IC & C), Finding 26 - Management Override of Established Internal Controls (IC), Finding 31 - Unsupported Experience-Based Pay Increases (IC), and other undisclosed matters. Notably, none of these specific findings are instances where KS&C was prevented from forming a conclusion. To the contrary, the original findings identified by KS&C reflect otherwise. For instance, in Finding 16, KS&C notes it “tested 539 and identified 213 in which invoices were paid without sufficient documentation.” Despite KS&C’s assertions, LPSB has at no point failed to provide information to KS&C upon request (see Corrective Action sections below). In fact, KS&C issued 33 Findings, each purportedly substantiated by documentation. As stated in LPSB’s Response, a request was made by LPSB for KS&C to produce the referenced specific supporting documentation. However, KS&C declined to provide the documentation. Auditing standards stipulate: “Auditors should document supervisory review, before the report release date, of the evidence that supports the findings and conclusions contained in the audit report.”3 They further require: “Auditors should document any departures from the GAGAS requirements and the effect on the audit and on the auditors’ conclusions when the audit is not in compliance with applicable GAGAS requirements because of law, regulation, scope limitations, restrictions on access to records, or other issues affecting the audit.”4 Despite LPSB, in its Response and communications prior thereto pointing out erroneous references to the law and facts, KS&C refused to modify its findings. Instead, it introduced these two ambiguous Disclaimers of Opinion, alleging that LPSB failed to provide necessary information for KS&C to reach a conclusion. However, a cursory review of its original findings clearly reflect that KS&C did reach conclusions, which they assert were based upon conditions found during their investigation. Which is it? Are KS&C’s findings supported or not? KS&C’s ex post Disclaimers of Opinion not only misrepresent LPSB’s cooperation and full disclosure of information, but they are also predicated upon the unfounded assertion that LPSB’s “representations, including written representations required under auditing standards, could not be relied upon due to concerns regarding the reliability of management representations.” After 33 years of engagement with LPSB audits, KS&C has now made the unwarranted claim that LPSB’s representations are unreliable, without pointing to a specific instance of unreliability. Ironically, it is the auditor’s own representations that are demonstrated to be unreliable, as evidenced by the submission of these two vague and contradictory Disclaimers of Opinion. “[A] CPA cannot enter into the engagement with a pre-conceived notion that the local auditee is doing everything wrong. Going into an engagement with [this] attitude impairs the independence of the CPA firm.” The two findings, submitted after LPSB responded to its original findings, do not meet the standards set forth in the Louisiana Governmental Audit Guide. They contradict the original findings, misrepresent LPSB’s cooperation throughout the audit, insert slanderous statements as to the reliability of LPSB’s representations, and fail to provide a full explanation for the disclaimer of opinion. KS&C should remove these findings from its report. 1 LGAG 400-1160, Types of Auditor’s Opinions 2 LGAG 400-1160, Types of Auditor’s Opinions 3 GAO-24, Sections 6.31 (emphasis added) 4 GAO-24, Sections 6.32 B. CORRECTIVE ACTION Prior to the financial audit, Lafayette Parish School Board (LPSB) staff prepared reports and documentation for at least 185 requests that were made by the external auditors. These requests consisted of, but were not limited to, all General Ledger data and information on all Major and Non Major Funds (i.e. General Fund, Construction Funds, Debt Service Funds, and Special Revenue funds), worksheets, personnel records, copies of checks, copies of invoices, grant reimbursement requests, expenditure detail reports, capital asset data and reports, accounts payable data and reports, the type of computer equipment used (including the software and operating systems), construction related documents, copies of contracts, insurance invoices, schedules of judgments and agreements, check registers, calendars, securities pledged, accounts payable details, financial statements, schedule of construction contracts, retirement reports, listing of new hires, purchase orders, check requests, financial reconciliations, sales tax reports and documents, other insurance related documents, insurance policies, monitoring reports, AFR report, arbitrage documentation, copies of deposits receipts, copies of budgets, outstanding checks, revenue reports, expenditure reports, and balance sheet reports. Under the Department of Education agreed upon procedures audit, LPSB staff provided Class size data, PEP data and a user guide. Under the Statewide Agreed Upon procedure, LPSB staff provided proof of required trainings such as ethics, bond insurance policies, list of all bank accounts, a listing of employees, officials employed during the year, and a list of deposit and collection sites. Other requests from our external auditors may come via email throughout the audit process and responses are provided likewise. All of the items listed above, and other items that were not listed above, are routinely provided each year. For several decades this has been the standard and nothing has changed in terms of provided supporting documentation within this particular audit. Internal controls have been in place for many decades. The external auditors have been reviewing, studying and auditing our internal controls for three decades. Over the years, LPSB internal controls have been adjusted, strengthened or heighten to prevent operational deficiencies, fraud and/or non-compliance of which the auditors have contributed to its advancement. Substantially, there has been no change to internal controls as they are in place for a reason. Systematically, internal controls are planted and executed in various areas and departments for various functions and/or lawful requirements. The biggest threats to any organization are misappropriation or improper disbursement of funds. Neither have occurred, because internal controls such as the utilization of electronic requisitions and check request processes were in place to ensure goods and services were precured properly and vendor payments were substantiated. LPSB stands by its management representations that have been provided to the auditors. We acknowledge our responsibility for the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal controls relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. In addition to supporting documentation, the external auditors had complete access to our financial software to ascertain the completeness and accuracy of our financial records. Auditor’s Response The School Board’s response to this finding contains statements and characterizations that are inconsistent with the audit evidence obtained and the procedures performed. The auditor stands by the condition, criteria, cause, and effect as presented in the finding, which are based on documentation, observations, interviews, and other information available during the audit. Management’s response has not resulted in any change to the finding or the auditor’s conclusions.

Condition During our audit of the School Board’s financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2025, we encountered circumstances that imposed pervasive limitations on the scope of our audit. Specifically: • We were unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence regarding significant financial statement balances, transactions, and disclosures. • Accounting records and supporting documentation necessary to perform audit procedures were incomplete, unavailable, or unreliable. • Management representations, including written representations required under auditing standards, could not be relied upon due to concerns regarding the reliability of management representations. • These conditions, combined with the risk that management could override internal controls, further limited our ability to obtain evidence that financial reporting was complete and accurate. In addition, these same conditions prevented us from performing required audit procedures over the School Board’s federal programs, including testing of internal control over compliance and compliance with applicable federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of federal awards. As a result, we were unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to support an opinion on compliance for each major federal program. Criteria Uniform Guidance (2 CFR §200.303 and §200.514) requires non-federal entities to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal programs and to provide auditors with access to records and personnel necessary to perform a Single Audit. Uniform Guidance §200.516 requires auditors to report material weaknesses and noncompliance when identified. Cause The conditions described above resulted from inadequate recordkeeping and documentation practices, deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting, and management actions and behaviors that restricted the auditor’s ability to obtain reliable audit evidence and representations. These conditions directly impaired the auditor’s ability to perform planned audit procedures and obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence. These conditions affected both financial reporting and compliance with federal program requirements. Effect Because of these pervasive limitations and the risk of management override, we were unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide a basis for an audit opinion. The potential effects on the financial statements are both material and pervasive, and therefore we issued a disclaimer of opinion on the School Board’s financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2025. For the same reasons, we were also unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to support an opinion on compliance for each of the School Board’s major federal programs and on internal control over compliance. Accordingly, we disclaimed an opinion on compliance for each major federal program under the Single Audit. Context Questioned costs could not be determined due to the disclaimer of opinion. Recommendation We recommend that the School Board take immediate action to strengthen its internal control environment. Specifically, management should: • Ensure that all accounting records and supporting documentation are complete, accurate, and readily available. • Enforce oversight of financial reporting and internal control procedures. • Promote transparency, accountability, and cooperation with auditors to facilitate future audits. • Implement measures to mitigate the risk of management override, including additional supervisory review, approval requirements, and segregation of duties. • Ensure compliance documentation for federal programs is complete, accurate, and available for audit. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action A. OBJECTION On December 29, 2025, following LPSB’s submission of its Response to the Draft Findings of Kolder, Slaven, and Company, LLC (“KS&C”) relating to its 2024-2025 Annual Audit, LPSB received two additional findings characterized as Disclaimers of Opinion. The issuance of these post-response Disclaimers of Opinion regarding the findings highlights KS&C’s apparent lack of objectivity and its failure to adhere to generally accepted government auditing standards in conducting the 24-25 audit. A Disclaimer of Opinion “is expressed when the auditor is unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence on which to base the opinion, and the auditor concludes that the possible effects on the financial statements of undetected misstatements, if any, could be both material and pervasive.”1 According to LLA, “a local auditee that provides for an audit report with a disclaimer of opinion” is regarded as being in noncompliance with its reporting requirements to LLA under the audit law (Louisiana Revised Statute 24:513). LLA further expects the CPA to include in such a report a finding that provides a full explanation for the disclaimer of opinion.2 The two supplemental responses provided are, however, substantially lacking the “full explanation” mandated by the Legislative Auditors for the serious allegations being presented by KS&C. As with its other findings, these recent findings fail to cite any specific conditions present during the audit period that would have precluded KS&C from forming a conclusion. Therefore, as with the original findings, LPSB, on January 6, 2026, again requested that KS&C provide supporting evidence for its claim that it was unable to obtain “evidence regarding significant financial statement balances, transactions, and disclosures.” KS&C responded by stating that these new findings were based on Finding 16 - Invoices Paid Without Sufficient Supporting Detail (IC & C), Finding 26 - Management Override of Established Internal Controls (IC), Finding 31 - Unsupported Experience-Based Pay Increases (IC), and other undisclosed matters. Notably, none of these specific findings are instances where KS&C was prevented from forming a conclusion. To the contrary, the original findings identified by KS&C reflect otherwise. For instance, in Finding 16, KS&C notes it “tested 539 and identified 213 in which invoices were paid without sufficient documentation.” Despite KS&C’s assertions, LPSB has at no point failed to provide information to KS&C upon request (see Corrective Action sections below). In fact, KS&C issued 33 Findings, each purportedly substantiated by documentation. As stated in LPSB’s Response, a request was made by LPSB for KS&C to produce the referenced specific supporting documentation. However, KS&C declined to provide the documentation. Auditing standards stipulate: “Auditors should document supervisory review, before the report release date, of the evidence that supports the findings and conclusions contained in the audit report.”3 They further require: “Auditors should document any departures from the GAGAS requirements and the effect on the audit and on the auditors’ conclusions when the audit is not in compliance with applicable GAGAS requirements because of law, regulation, scope limitations, restrictions on access to records, or other issues affecting the audit.”4 Despite LPSB, in its Response and communications prior thereto pointing out erroneous references to the law and facts, KS&C refused to modify its findings. Instead, it introduced these two ambiguous Disclaimers of Opinion, alleging that LPSB failed to provide necessary information for KS&C to reach a conclusion. However, a cursory review of its original findings clearly reflect that KS&C did reach conclusions, which they assert were based upon conditions found during their investigation. Which is it? Are KS&C’s findings supported or not? KS&C’s ex post Disclaimers of Opinion not only misrepresent LPSB’s cooperation and full disclosure of information, but they are also predicated upon the unfounded assertion that LPSB’s “representations, including written representations required under auditing standards, could not be relied upon due to concerns regarding the reliability of management representations.” After 33 years of engagement with LPSB audits, KS&C has now made the unwarranted claim that LPSB’s representations are unreliable, without pointing to a specific instance of unreliability. Ironically, it is the auditor’s own representations that are demonstrated to be unreliable, as evidenced by the submission of these two vague and contradictory Disclaimers of Opinion. “[A] CPA cannot enter into the engagement with a pre-conceived notion that the local auditee is doing everything wrong. Going into an engagement with [this] attitude impairs the independence of the CPA firm.” The two findings, submitted after LPSB responded to its original findings, do not meet the standards set forth in the Louisiana Governmental Audit Guide. They contradict the original findings, misrepresent LPSB’s cooperation throughout the audit, insert slanderous statements as to the reliability of LPSB’s representations, and fail to provide a full explanation for the disclaimer of opinion. KS&C should remove these findings from its report. 1 LGAG 400-1160, Types of Auditor’s Opinions 2 LGAG 400-1160, Types of Auditor’s Opinions 3 GAO-24, Sections 6.31 (emphasis added) 4 GAO-24, Sections 6.32 B. CORRECTIVE ACTION Prior to the financial audit, Lafayette Parish School Board (LPSB) staff prepared reports and documentation for at least 185 requests that were made by the external auditors. These requests consisted of, but were not limited to, all General Ledger data and information on all Major and Non Major Funds (i.e. General Fund, Construction Funds, Debt Service Funds, and Special Revenue funds), worksheets, personnel records, copies of checks, copies of invoices, grant reimbursement requests, expenditure detail reports, capital asset data and reports, accounts payable data and reports, the type of computer equipment used (including the software and operating systems), construction related documents, copies of contracts, insurance invoices, schedules of judgments and agreements, check registers, calendars, securities pledged, accounts payable details, financial statements, schedule of construction contracts, retirement reports, listing of new hires, purchase orders, check requests, financial reconciliations, sales tax reports and documents, other insurance related documents, insurance policies, monitoring reports, AFR report, arbitrage documentation, copies of deposits receipts, copies of budgets, outstanding checks, revenue reports, expenditure reports, and balance sheet reports. Under the Department of Education agreed upon procedures audit, LPSB staff provided Class size data, PEP data and a user guide. Under the Statewide Agreed Upon procedure, LPSB staff provided proof of required trainings such as ethics, bond insurance policies, list of all bank accounts, a listing of employees, officials employed during the year, and a list of deposit and collection sites. Other requests from our external auditors may come via email throughout the audit process and responses are provided likewise. All of the items listed above, and other items that were not listed above, are routinely provided each year. For several decades this has been the standard and nothing has changed in terms of provided supporting documentation within this particular audit. Internal controls have been in place for many decades. The external auditors have been reviewing, studying and auditing our internal controls for three decades. Over the years, LPSB internal controls have been adjusted, strengthened or heighten to prevent operational deficiencies, fraud and/or non-compliance of which the auditors have contributed to its advancement. Substantially, there has been no change to internal controls as they are in place for a reason. Systematically, internal controls are planted and executed in various areas and departments for various functions and/or lawful requirements. The biggest threats to any organization are misappropriation or improper disbursement of funds. Neither have occurred, because internal controls such as the utilization of electronic requisitions and check request processes were in place to ensure goods and services were precured properly and vendor payments were substantiated. LPSB stands by its management representations that have been provided to the auditors. We acknowledge our responsibility for the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal controls relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. In addition to supporting documentation, the external auditors had complete access to our financial software to ascertain the completeness and accuracy of our financial records. Auditor’s Response The School Board’s response to this finding contains statements and characterizations that are inconsistent with the audit evidence obtained and the procedures performed. The auditor stands by the condition, criteria, cause, and effect as presented in the finding, which are based on documentation, observations, interviews, and other information available during the audit. Management’s response has not resulted in any change to the finding or the auditor’s conclusions.

Criteria or specific requirement: Per Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR Part 200) Subpart D, Post Federal Award Requirements Section 200.303, Internal controls, the recipient must establish, document and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the recipient is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Per 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E, Cost Principles, the accounting practices of the recipient must be consistent with the cost principles and support the accumulation of costs as required by the cost principles, including maintaining adequate documentation to support costs charged to the Federal award. Condition: The District claimed expenditures that did not have adequate supporting documentation, such as invoices, receipts, purchase orders and proof of payment. Cause: The District's internal controls over compliance were not functioning effectively to ensure reimbursements were claimed for only actual expenditures incurred and supported by adequate documentation. Effect: The District was not in compliance with the allowable costs/cost principles compliance requirement. Questioned Costs: The following questioned costs were computed based on differences between the amounts claimed for reimbursement by the District and its expenditure accounting records: $1,185 (Project No. 24-4300-00) $10,423 (Project No. 25-4331-00) Context: The condition noted was identified upon reconciling reimbursements claimed by the District to the general ledger accounts in which related expenditures were recorded and investigation of differences identified. Recommendation: We recommend the District strengthen internal controls to ensure all expenditures charged to federal programs are supported by proper documentation prior to being submitted for reimbursement. Documentation should be retained in accordance with federal record retention requirements. Management's response: The District agrees with the auditor's finding and recommendation.

Criteria or specific requirement :Per Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR Part 200) Subpart D, Post Federal Award Requirements Section 200.303, Internal controls, the recipient must establish, document and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the recipient is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. The requirements for activities allowed or unallowed are contained in program legislation, federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Condition: The District incurred program expenditures that were not charged in accordance with the approved grant budget. Cause: The District's internal controls over compliance were not functioning effectively to ensure program expenditures were compliant with the activities allowed or unallowed compliance requirement. Effect: The District was not in compliance with the activities allowed or unallowed compliance requirement. Questioned Costs:The following questioned costs were computed based on exceptions identified in the activities allowed or unallowed compliance testing performed: $10,016 (Project No. 25-4300-00) Context: From the population of non-payroll expenditures totaling $1,230,248, a sample of forty (40) transactions totaling $123,816 were selected for testing, from which two (2) transactions totaling $10,016 were considered exceptions. A statistically valid sample was not utilized. Recommendation: We recommend that the District strengthen controls over expenditure coding and grant claiming processes by ensuring invoices are reviewed against the approved budget detail prior to claiming. This should include management review and periodic reconciliation of claimed expenditures to the grant budget. Management's response: The District agrees with the auditor's finding and recommendation.

Material Weakness in Internal Controls over Compliance and Noncompliance Condition: The Organization could not provide documentation to support that personnel costs were charged to the federal awards based on actual costs and time spent on the federal program. Criteria: Per §200.430(g)(1) of the Code of Federal Regulations, charges to Federal awards for personnel costs must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must support the distribution of employees’ salary among specific activities or cost objectives and must not exceed the actual time worked. Per § 200.303 of the Code of Federal Regulations, recipients must establish, document, and maintain internal controls over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the recipient is managing the Federal Award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Cause: Due to staff transitions during the year, the Organization could not provide documentation to support the amount of personnel costs charged to federal awards. While staff reported time spent on work performed under the federal awards, no review of the reported time was documented and no allocation documentation could be provided to trace the amount of personnel costs charged to federal awards to the time reported by staff. Effect: Federal expenditures on the Schedule of Federal Awards (SEFA) could be overstated resulting in noncompliance with federal cost principles and unallowable cost. Context: During our testing of payroll transactions charged to the federal program, we selected a sample of four out of 26 payroll periods to test. In all four payroll periods tested, the amount charged to the federal program could not be supported by documentation of actual personnel costs incurred for time spent on program activities. Documentation of the review of time spent on program activities reported by staff also could not be provided. Questioned costs total $436,615, which is the total amount of personnel costs reported under the major program grants for the year. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization implement written policies and procedures to ensure that payroll charges to federal awards are based on actual costs incurred. Employees should prepare time and effort documentation reflecting actual hours worked on the federal program activities for each payroll period. This documentation should be reviewed, and evidence of this review should be maintained. This documentation should be used to determine the amount of personnel costs to charge to the federal award, and documentation of this allocation should be maintained. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding.

Material Weakness in Internal Controls over Compliance Condition: During our testing of matching, level of effort, and earmarking, it was noted the Organization did not perform or document required controls over matching, level of effort, and earmarking requirements. Criteria: Per § 200.303 of the Code of Federal Regulations, recipients must establish, document, and maintain internal controls over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the recipient is managing the Federal Award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Cause: Controls to document proper tracking of matching, level of effort, and earmarking were not implemented by the Organization. The responsibility for oversight along with monitoring activities was not documented. Effect: Failure to establish, document, and maintain internal controls increases the risk that federal funds may not be used in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, potentially resulting in noncompliance with program requirements. Context: During our testing of matching, level of effort, and earmarking requirements, no evidence of controls over the compliance requirement could be provided. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization develop and implement formal documented monitoring procedures to ensure accuracy and track compliance with matching, level of effort, and earmarking requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding.

2025 – 001 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Federal Program Name: Child and Adult Care Food Program Assistance Listing Number: 10.558 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: 142607000-2025 Pass-Through Agency: State of Arizona Department of Education Award Period: 07/01/2024 – 06/30/2025 Type of Finding: • Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance • Other Matters Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR 200.303(a), WACOG must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award. WACOG Finance Policies & Procedures requires periodic vendor due diligence, including evaluation of multiple prequalified contractors and confirmation of suspension and debarment status, to ensure compliance with procurement standards and eligibility requirements. Condition: Per WACOG Finance Policies & Procedures, the entity is required to perform vendor due diligence at least once every three years. Due diligence procedures include, at a minimum, (1) evaluation of at least two pre-qualified contractors and (2) verification that vendors are not suspended or debarred. For the single vendor tested, sufficient documentation and support for evidence of vendor due diligence was not furnished. Questioned costs: No questioned costs noted. Context: WACOG utilized cooperative contracts and external vendors to support program operations during the audit period. Per WACOG Finance Policies & Procedures, vendors used by the entity are subject to periodic due diligence requirements designed to ensure continued eligibility and compliance with procurement standards. These procedures are intended to be performed at least once every three years and documented to support ongoing vendor use. Cause: Program management encountered internal changes and due diligence procedures were performed informally, resulting in supporting documentation not being retained in a central or systematic manner. Effect: WACOG is not in compliance with its established procurement policies related to vendor due diligence and suspension and debarment requirements. Failure to document these procedures increases the risk of continued engagement with ineligible vendors and noncompliance with internal control expectations. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: WACOG should enhance internal procedures related to the continued review and monitoring of vendors used under cooperative contracts. Management should implement standardized checklists and maintain a centralized repository for documenting vendor due diligence activities, including prequalification evaluations and suspension and debarment verifications. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.

8. Criteria or specific requirement (including statutory, regulatory, or other citation) Federal awards claimed on a reimbursement basis must be limited to allowable costs incurred during the period of performance. Recipients must maintain effective internal controls to ensure charges are accurate, supported, and compliant with federal requirements (2 CFR §200.303 – Internal controls; §200.302 – Financial management; §200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs; §200.405 – Allocable costs; §200.344 – Closeout). Under cash management principles, reimbursement must not exceed expenditures incurred. 9. Condition The District submitted an expenditure report for $19,165,569 for the quarter ending March 31, 2025, which included amounts that were properly obligated but not yet expended as of the report date. The District reported $14,638,097 in ESSER funds on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA), resulting in an unsupported difference of $4,527,472. 10. Questioned Costs Questioned costs totaled $4,527,472. 11. Context The District claimed the remaining award amount in the March submission as the liquidation extension for the grant was no longer available. 12. Effect The submission of expenditure reports that include unexpended obligations may result in inaccurate financial reporting and misrepresentation of the District’s use of federal funds. This could impact cash management decisions and compliance monitoring by the pass-through entity. 13. Cause As the ESSER grant period approached expiration, management attempted to maximize remaining available funding by submitting reimbursement requests in advance of incurring related expenditures. The District did not have adequate controls in place to ensure that expenditures were incurred prior to requesting federal reimbursement, as required by program regulations. 14. Recommendation We recommend the District submit claims for reimbursement for expenditures that the District has incurred. 15. Management's response See Corrective Action Plan.

8. Criteria or specific requirement Per Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR Part 200) Subpart D, Post Federal Award Requirements Section 200.303(a), Internal controls, the subrecipient must establish, document, and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the subrecipient is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Per the Frequently Asked Questions, Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Programs (ESSER), Governor's Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Programs, December 7, 2022 Update, a local educational authority has until September 30, 2024 to obligate the American Rescue Plan (ARP) ESSER funds it received and ESSER funds must be liquidated within 120 calendar days after the end of the performance period. The original liquidation period applicable to the District for its ARP ESSER funds was January 28, 2025. The U.S. Department of Education approved extension of the District's liquidation period through March 28, 2026 for funds obligated on or before September 30, 2024. On March 28, 2025, the U.S. Department of Education modified the liquidation period extension to end on March 28, 2025. On May 6, 2025, the liquidation period was extended to May 24, 2025 per a preliminary injunction entered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as a result of litigation initiated by the State of New York challenging the U.S. Department of Education's revocation of the March 28, 2026 liquidation period extension. On June 26, 2025, the U.S. Department of Education ultimately reinstated the March 28, 2026 liquidation period extension. 9. Condition On May 15, 2025, ISBE communicated to the District that ARP ESSER recipients had until May 24, 2025 to liquidate obligations and that the District needed to submit its expenditure report to ISBE by May 21, 2025 for ISBE to process and submit to the U.S. Department of Education by the new deadline. On May 21, 2025, the District submitted a claim for reimbursement of expenditures totaling $4,343,814. The expenditures comprising this claim by date incurred and liquidated were as follows: $1,668,710 incurred through May 21, 2025 and liquidated as of that date $31,692 incurred through May 21, 2025 but not liquidated as of that date $325,805 incurred from May 21, 2025 through June 30, 2025 and liquidated as of June 30, 2025 $531,321 incurred from May 21, 2025 through June 30, 2025 but not liquidated as of June 30, 2025 $1,786,286 incurred after June 30, 2025 At May 21, 2025 and June 30, 2025, expenditures totaling $2,675,104 and 2,349,299, respectively, out of the $4,343,814 claimed for reimbursement were not incurred, not liquidated or both and, therefore, did not qualify for reimbursement based on the Federal statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of the Federal award in effect at those dates. 10. Cause The District's established internal controls over compliance were able to be overridden. '11. Effect The District was not in compliance with the activities allowed or unallowed compliance requirement. 12. Questioned Costs The District's expenditures claimed for reimbursement but not incurred and liquidated as of June 30, 2025 were not reported in the schedule of expenditures of federal awards for the year ended June 30, 2025. These expenditures will be reported in the schedule of expenditures of federal awards when both incurred and liquidated in the year ending June 30, 2026. Accordingly, no questioned costs have been identified. '13. Context The population of sixty-four (64) expenditures comprising the May 21, 2025 claim for reimbursement totaling $4,343,814 were identified as high risk and all were selected for tested to determine the elements of the finding reported herein. However, our sample of thirteen (13) expenditure transactions selected from throughout the year for testing resulted in no identified exceptions. A statistically valid sample was not utilized. 14. Recommendation We recommend that management review its policies and procedures and implement changes to strengthen internal control over compliance. 15. Management's response The District agrees with the auditor's finding and recommendation.

Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Treasury Federal Program Name: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listing Number: 21.027 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: SLFRP4374, 2021 Pass-Through Agency: Iowa Economic Development Authority Pass-Through Number: 23-INIA-023 Award Period: September 14, 2022 – September 30, 2026 Type of Finding: Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance Criteria: 2 CFR Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards Section 200.303 requires entities to establish and maintain effective internal controls over Federal Awards. Condition: During our testing we noted internal controls over expenditures were not properly followed. Questioned Costs: None Context: During our testing we noted construction pay applications from March 2023 – August 2023 did not have documented review. Cause: Project Manager was not in place prior to September 2023 to properly review pay applications. Effect: The auditor noted no instances of noncompliance with the allowability of costs or support for costs; the lack of internal controls over expenditures provides an opportunity for noncompliance. Repeat Finding: Yes, 2024-003 Recommendation: We recommend the Organization ensure proper review and approval over expenditures. Views of Responsible Officials: There is no disagreement with the finding.

Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program Title: Student Financial Assistance Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 84.063, 84.268 Award Period: June 1, 2024 to May 31, 2025 Type of Finding: • Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance Criteria or Specific Requirement: The 2 CFR section 200.303 requires that non-federal entities receiving federal awards establish and maintain internal control over the federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards. Condition: During our testing, we noted the College did not have a formal review of their monthly reconciliations of Common Origination and Disbursement (COD) data with student account records, federal aid packaging by financial aid staff, and monitoring of the G5 system to ensure timely return of undisbursed funds after 240 days. Questioned Costs: N/A Context: The College did not have proper internal controls in place during the 2024-25 academic year to ensure compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Cause: The lack of documentation appears to stem from limited administrative capacity, particularly in the wake of operational disruptions and regulatory changes such as FAFSA Simplification. Effect: The College is not following the compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend the College review its procedures to ensure controls are in place to ensure to catch any inconsistencies that occur during the year. Views of Responsible Officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.

Finding 2025-001 – Procurement (Material Weakness) Repeat Finding: No Federal Agency – National Science Foundation; National Institute of Health Research and Development Cluster Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences – Passed through New York University: 47.075, Mathematical and Physical Sciences – Passed through Loyola University of Chicago: 47.049, Biological Sciences: 47.074, Allergy and Infectious Disease Research: 93.855 Federal Award Years: Year Ended May 31, 2025 Condition The College's procurement policy does not reflect all applicable state and local laws and federal regulations. For two out of three (67%) small purchase procurements, there was not sufficient evidence to support that documentation of the noncompetitive procurement method selected was provided at the time of purchase. Criteria Non-federal entities other than states, including those operating federal programs as subrecipients of states, must follow the procurement standards set out at 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.327. They must use their own documented procurement procedures, which reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform to applicable federal statutes and the procurement requirements identified in 2 CFR Part 200. In accordance with 2 CFR sections 200.319 and 200.320(f), price quotations should be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources for procurements that meet the small purchase procurement threshold or require documentation in support of the rationale to limit competition in those cases where competition was limited. Uniform Grant Guidance (2 CFR 200.303) requires nonfederal entities receiving Federal awards establish and maintain internal controls deigned to reasonably ensure compliance with Federal laws, regulations, and program compliance requirements. Effective internal controls should include procedures to ensure the College has a procurement policy that meets the all applicable state and local laws and regulations. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs related to this finding. Cause The College does not have a procurement policy that follows the procurement standards set out at 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.327. Context Two out of three vendors tested. Expenditures totaled $100,553. Effect Lack of a documented procurement policy that meets applicable state and local laws and federal regulations can result in improper procurement of goods and services which can lead to loss of future funding. Recommendation We recommend the College implement a procurement policy that conforms to federal regulations. We also recommend that the College implement policies and procedures around documentation of noncompetitive bidding. Views of Responsible Officials We agree with this finding. See corrective action plan.

Finding 2025-002 – Suspension and Debarment (Material Weakness) Repeat Finding: No Federal Agency – National Science Foundation; National Institute of Health Research and Development Cluster Biological Sciences: 47.074, Allergy and Infectious Disease Research: 93.855 Federal Award Years: Year Ended May 31, 2025 Condition For two out two vendors (100%) tested, the College did not provide sufficient documentation that a suspension and debarment check was performed prior to entering into a contract with the vendor. Criteria Non-federal entities are prohibited from contracting with or making subawards under covered transactions to parties that are suspended or debarred. “Covered transactions” include contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (e.g., grant or cooperative agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000 or meet certain other criteria as specified in 2 CFR section 180.220 Uniform Grant Guidance (2 CFR 200.303) requires nonfederal entities receiving Federal awards establish and maintain internal controls deigned to reasonably ensure compliance with Federal laws, regulations, and program compliance requirements. Effective internal controls should include procedures to ensure suspension and debarment checks are performed and documented. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs related to this finding. Cause The College did not have controls in place to reasonably ensure compliance with suspension and debarment requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Context Two out of two vendors tested. A subsequent check was confirmed that these vendors were not suspended or debarred. Effect If the College does not obtain documentation confirming a vendor for a procurement transaction was not suspended or debarred, the College could enter into a transaction with a suspended or debarred vendor causing unallowable costs and as a result represent noncompliance and result in a loss of federal funding. Recommendation We recommend the College review current processes for suspension and debarment to ensure that documentation is included to support the suspension and debarment check prior to entering into a contract with a vendor. Views of Responsible Officials We agree with this finding. See corrective action plan.

Finding 2025-003 – Student Financial Aid - Excess Cash (Significant Deficiency) Repeat Finding: No Federal Agency – U.S. Department of Education (ED) Student Financial Assistance Cluster Federal Direct Student Loans: 84.268 Federal Award Years: Year Ended May 31, 2025 Condition During our cash management testing, we identified that Lake Forest College had excess cash for the FDL program ranging from $24,903 to $3,683,698 during the period of January 30, 2025 through February 7, 2025. In this situation, the excess cash exceeded one percent of total prior year drawdowns, and the amount was not returned within a seven-day period. Criteria Uniform Grant Guidance (34 CFR 668.166) states the Secretary considers excess cash to be any amount of Title IV, HEA program funds, other than Federal Perkins Loan program funds, that an institution does not disburse to students by the end of the third business day following the date the institution (1) received those funds from the Secretary; or (2) deposited or transferred to its depository account previously disbursed Title IV, HEA program funds, such as those resulting from awards adjustments, recoveries, or cancellations. An institution may maintain for up to seven days an amount of excess cash that does not exceed one percent of the total amount of funds the institution drew down in the prior award year. The institution must return immediately to the Secretary any amount of excess cash over the one-percent tolerance and any amount of excess cash remaining in its account after the seven-day tolerance period. Uniform Grant Guidance (2 CFR 200.303) requires nonfederal entities receiving Federal awards establish and maintain internal controls deigned to reasonably ensure compliance with Federal laws, regulations, and program compliance requirements. Effective internal controls should include procedures to ensure excess cash is properly handled. Questioned Costs Questioned costs is the amount that exceeded one percent of total prior year drawdowns. Excess cash ranged from $24,903 to $3,683,698. Cause The College drew down funds in advance of the Spring semester which is allowed based on the College’s cash management method. However, due to timing differences, the funds were not ultimately disbursed to students until 8 days after the drawdown was made. Context One instance of excess cash during the fiscal year. Effect Excess cash is noncompliance with Federal regulation and could result in the loss of future funding. Untimely reconciliation of federal awards can result in over or under awarding of funding and result in heightened monitoring by the Department of Education. Recommendation We recommend the College review current processes for monitoring cash management and implement procedures that eliminate excess cash. Views of Responsible Officials We agree with this finding. See corrective action plan.

Finding 2025-004 – Enrollment Reporting (Significant Deficiency) Repeat Finding: No Federal Agency – U.S. Department of Education (ED) Student Financial Assistance Cluster Federal Pell Grant Program: 84.063 Federal Direct Student Loans: 84.268 Federal Work Study Program: 84.033 Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants 84.007 Federal Award Years: Year Ended May 31, 2025 Condition For three out of forty (7.5%) student enrollment reporting selections, the student's status change at the campus level and program was not properly reported to NSLDS with the required timeframe. Criteria CFR section 685.309 and 690.83(b)(2) requires the College to notify the NSLDS within 30 days of a change in student status or include the change in status in a response to an enrollment reporting roster within 60 days of the student’s date of determination of withdrawal. Uniform Grant Guidance (2 CFR 200.303) requires nonfederal entities receiving Federal awards establish and maintain internal controls deigned to reasonably ensure compliance with Federal laws, regulations, and program compliance requirements. Effective internal controls should include procedures to ensure accurate and timely enrollment reporting Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs related to testing of enrollment reporting. Cause The student's status change was after the last scheduled reporting transmission file of the semester, therefore their status change was not captured in the NSLDS reporting submission. Context Three out of forty students selected for testing. Effect Failure to report status changes accurately is noncompliance with Federal regulation and could result in heightened monitoring by the Department of Education. Recommendation We recommend the College implement review procedures to ensure that the proper effective date is being reported to the NSLDS when a student withdraws or has an enrollment status change. A system of review procedures and/or controls will ensure the College is reporting status changes accurately. Views of responsible officials We agree with this finding. See corrective action plan.

Special Tests and Provisions – Enrollment Reporting U.S. Department of Education, Student Financial Assistance Cluster, Assistance Listing Number 84.268 Federal Direct Student Loans, Assistance Listing Number 84.063 Federal Pell Grant Program Program Year 2024–2025 Type of Finding: Other Instance of Noncompliance and Deficiency Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.303, 34 CFR 685.309, OMB No. 1845-0035 and the Federal Student Aid Handbook, institutions are required to report accurate and timely enrollment status changes, including graduation, to the NSLDS via the National Student Clearinghouse or other reporting mechanisms. Accurate reporting ensures proper administration of Title IV funds and prevents inappropriate loan deferments or repayments. Condition: The University did not ensure that all graduation data was accurately transmitted and reflected in the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS). Questioned Costs: $0 Context: Out of the population of 167 students subject to enrollment reporting, a sample of 17 students were selected for testing. For 1 of the 17 students tested, NSLDS did not reflect the student’s graduation status on campus or program students in which the University’s records reported graduated. Effect: Failure to report accurate enrollment status may result in incorrect deferment or repayment statuses for student borrowers, potentially impacting loan servicing and compliance with federal regulations. Cause: The errors appear to be the result of a lapse in control by the University to ensure all graduation data was accurately transmitted and reflected in the NSLDS. Recommendation: We recommend the University enhance its controls over the enrollment reporting process to ensure that all graduation data is accurately and timely reported to the NSLDS. This may include periodic reconciliations between internal records and NSLDS data and follow-up procedures for discrepancies. Views of Responsible Officials: Management concurs with the finding and recommendation. Further information on the corrective action plan will be provided by management.

Finding 2025-001: Excess Cash – Student Financial Aid Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Program Name: Student Financial Assistance Cluster, Federal Direct Student Loans Assistance Listing Number: 84.268 Award Year: June 1, 2024 – May 31, 2025 Program Expenditures: $26,594,632 Questioned Costs: None Criteria: Uniform Grant Guidance (34 CFR 668.166) states the Secretary considers excess cash to be any amount of Title IV, Higher Education Act (HEA) program funds, other than Federal Perkins Loan program funds, that an institution does not disburse to students by the end of the third business day following the date the institution (1) received those funds from the Secretary; or (2) deposited or transferred to its depository account previously disbursed Title IV, HEA program funds, such as those resulting from awards adjustments, recoveries, or cancellations. An institution may maintain for up to seven days an amount of excess cash that does not exceed one percent of the total amount of funds the institution drew down in the prior award year. The institution must return immediately to the Secretary any amount of excess cash over the one-percent tolerance and any amount of excess cash remaining in its account after the seven-day tolerance period. Uniform Grant Guidance (2 CFR 200.303) requires nonfederal entities receiving Federal awards establish and maintain internal controls designed to reasonably ensure compliance with Federal laws, regulations, and program compliance requirements. Effective internal controls should include procedures to ensure excess cash is properly handled. Condition: The Kansas Health Science University (KHSU) had one instance of excess cash for the Federal Direct Student Loan program. During our cash management testing, we identified KHSU had excess cash for the Direct Loan program ranging from $94,646 to $190,735 for the period from March 21, 2025 to April 3, 2025. For the period of March 21, 2025 to April 3, 2025, the excess cash exceeded one percent of total prior year drawdowns and amounts were not returned within the seven-day period. Cause: University officials stated the excess cash issues were due to time needed to reconcile refunds with the Common Origination and Disbursement system. Effect: Excess cash is noncompliance with Federal regulations and could result in heightened monitoring by the U.S. Department of Education. Questioned Costs: None Context: For the period of March 21, 2025 to April 3, 2025, KHSU had excess cash ranging from $94,646 to $190,735. KHSU held excess cash for a period of 9 business days and 14 calendar days, respectively. Repeat Finding: Yes. (Finding 2024-001) Recommendation: We recommend KHSU strengthen internal controls around the determination of amounts to be drawn and refunded to the Secretary during the fiscal year. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. Please see corrective action plan attached.

Item 2025-006 - Special Tests and Provisions - U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Center Program Cluster (Assistance Listing Number 93.224/93.527) Notice of Award Number 6 H80CS00505-23-04, 6 H2ECS45602-02-04, 1 H8LCS50772-01-00 and 6 H8HCS46163-03-01 - (Significant Deficiency) Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.303(d), non-Federal entities must take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified, including those found in audits and monitoring reviews. Entities are also required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards, including monitoring and corrective action systems. Statement of Condition: During our audit, we noted that LBUCC conducted quarterly internal audit reviews of fifty (50) samples self-pay patients to review for sliding fee discount determination. However, we noted that the findings or exceptions identified in the quarterly internal audit review remained uncorrected. Cause: LBUCC did not have a formal tracking and follow-up procedure to ensure that internal audit findings are remediated in a timely and effective manner. Effect: Lack of procedures to track and follow up the remediation of detected errors increases the risk that errors may persist and may lead to noncompliance and/or financial reporting errors. Questioned Costs: None Context: LBUCC’s Operating Data Analyst haphazardly selects 50 samples from the sliding fee visits each quarter, inspects the supporting documentations and reviews the annual income calculation and sliding fee determination. The Operating Data Analyst noted 16 and 25 exceptions during the 3rd and 4th quarter internal reviews and none of these exceptions were communicated to the respective department and therefore all exceptions remained uncorrected. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that LBUCC establish a process for communicating, investigating and correcting all internal audit findings or exceptions on a timely manner. Additionally, we recommend that management identify the potential cause of such findings or exceptions and that necessary corrective actions be taken to address such cause. For example, LBUCC may conduct periodic training of all employees involved in the patient intake and screening process. Management Response: Management agrees with the finding and will implement these steps to strengthen our internal controls particularly the monitoring component as this is essential for sustaining compliance