Findings Citing § 200.405

CRITERIA: Per 2 CFR 200.405 and the grant agreement, costs charged to federal awards must be allowable, allocable, and in accordance with the approved indirect cost rate agreement. CONDITION: The entity overcharged indirect costs to the federal award by $1,462 during the year ended September 30, 2025. CAUSE: The entity applied the incorrect indirect cost rate. EFFECT: Overcharging indirect costs reduces costs available for the program and hinders program administration. QUESTIONED COSTS: $1,462 CONTEXT: This error was found in AL #47.084 which was $81,720 of expenses included in the total of $6,097,828 of federal expenditures. Total indirect costs of $906,416 were tested during the period out of which $1,462 were misapplied. PRIOR YEAR FINDING: No RECOMMENDATION: We recommend the entity review and update its grant management procedures to ensure the correct indirect cost rate is applied to all federal awards and that staff are trained on the current rates in effect. VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS AND PLANNED CORRECTIVE ACTION: Please see management’s Corrective Action Plan included in this reporting package.

Finding 2025-002: Reportable finding considered a significant deficiency - Noncompliance with Payroll Allocation Controls Program name: Headstart Cluster Assistance Listing: 93.600 Federal awarding agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Award identification numbers: 03CH012075-04-00, 03CH012075-05-00, 03CH012317-02-00, 03CH012317-03-00 Award Years: 2024/2025 Criteria: Under 2 CFR § 200.430(g)(1), charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must be supported by a system of internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated. The records must also 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 allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. Condition: Certain employees allocate time to the various projects within the headstart cluster, however, incorrect allocations resulted in payroll costs being charged to Federal awards using the wrong allocation percentages for approximately six months before the error was detected. The errors were mostly identified and corrected by the Organization; however, this correction occurred roughly six months after the incorrect allocation began. Management processed correcting entries such that the total payroll costs charged to the Head Start Federal awards for the fiscal year were corrected in the accounting records. Cause: The error resulted from a combination of data entry errors when setting up the allocation in the payroll allocation system; and insufficient review and monitoring controls over payroll allocation setup and ongoing allocations, including the lack of a documented, periodic review to confirm that allocations continue to reflect actual time and effort and the relative benefits received by Head Start and other programs. As a result, an incorrect allocation remained in place for several months before being identified and corrected. Effect: For approximately six months, payroll costs were allocated among the various Head Start awards and other programs using incorrect allocation percentages. This resulted in a control deficiency in the Organization’s internal control over compliance with Federal requirements for payroll and payroll allocations, including the requirement for effective control over and accountability for all funds in 2 CFR § 200.302(b)(4) and periods during which costs charged to the Head Start Federal awards were not aligned with the relative benefits received by the program, which is inconsistent with the allocability requirements of 2 CFR § 200.405(a). Although management corrected the year-end totals charged to the Head Start Federal awards, the delayed detection of the error indicates that similar errors could occur and remain undetected, potentially resulting in unsupported or unallowable payroll charges in future periods. Management’s response and corrective action plan (unaudited): See corrective action plan. Repeat finding: This is not a repeat finding. Questioned costs: None identified, as the expenditure appeared otherwise allowable. However, the control deficiency presents a risk for future noncompliance. Perspective: In our original sample of 40 payroll allocation transactions related to the Head Start program (ALN 93.600), we noted 5 errors impacting 2 employees. We did not increase our sample size because the error was pervasive across multiple employees. Additional testing over compliance was performed and noted that the errors were materially corrected by management during the year. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization: • Strengthen payroll allocation setup and review controls by implementing and documenting a review and approval process (by someone independent of the preparer) for new or modified payroll allocation setups in the payroll system for employees whose salaries are charged in whole or in part to Head Start. • Implement periodic after-the-fact reviews of payroll allocations for employees whose salaries are allocated to Head Start and other programs to confirm that allocations remain consistent with actual time and effort and the relative benefits received by each program, and that necessary adjustments are recorded timely. • Enhance documentation and training related to payroll allocations, including: o Written procedures describing how allocations affecting Head Start are established, reviewed, and monitored; and o Training for staff responsible for entering and reviewing payroll allocations on the requirements of 2 CFR § 200.302, § 200.405, and § 200.430, and the importance of timely identification and correction of errors. These actions should help ensure that payroll costs charged to the Head Start Federal award are accurate, properly supported, and allocable in accordance with Federal requirements.

Program Name: 93.778 Medicaid Cluster Description: Unallowable Costs and Reporting Condition and Criteria: The District charged payroll costs to the Medicaid program that were also charged to another federal program (IDEA Flow-Through), resulting in duplicate federal reimbursement for the same expenditures (“double-dipping”). Under 2 CFR 200.403 and 2 CFR 200.405, costs must be allocable to a single federal award and must not be charged to multiple programs. During audit testing of payroll charges, we identified employees whose salaries were allocated to both the Medicaid and IDEA Flow-Through programs for overlapping pay periods. Effect: The District’s internal controls failed to prevent or detect duplicate charges of federal payroll costs, resulting in noncompliance with federal cost principles and inaccurate Medicaid claiming. Cause: The condition resulted from control deficiencies in the District’s implementation of the new Skyward “Qmlative” accounting system. Specifically, the District did not select a configuration setting (“cross-reference other federal codes”) necessary to prevent duplicate allocations when importing payroll data for Medicaid claiming. Additionally, the District’s quarterly payroll review procedures focused on verifying employee totals rather than reconciling detailed payroll allocations across federal programs, which contributed to the oversight. Questioned Costs: $345,925 (projected) Auditors’ Recommendation: We recommend that the District strengthen internal controls over payroll cost allocation and Medicaid claiming to ensure that costs are charged to only one federal program. Specifically, the District should review and update the Skyward Qmlative configuration to properly identify and exclude payroll costs already charged to other federal projects, and implement detailed quarterly review procedures to verify that payroll data reconciles across all federal program codes. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan: See attachment for District’s corrective action plan.

Reference Number: 2025-004 Program Name: Special Education Cluster Description: Unallowable Costs Condition: During our testing, we noted that 4 individuals had benefit expenditures charged for employees with no corresponding salaries charged to the grant. Criteria: Per 2 CFR 200.405 and 2 CFR 200.431, fringe benefits must be allocable to the award in proportion to the salaries and wages charged. Cause: The District lacked adequate internal controls to ensure fringe benefits charged to the grant were tied to allowable documented salaries. Effect: Unallowable costs resulted from charging benefits without salaries. Questioned Costs: Not applicable – known questioned costs did not exceed the $25,000 reporting threshold. Identification of a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Auditors’ Recommendation: We recommend the District review payroll reports while completing grant claims to ensure fringe benefits are associated with salaries. Views of Responsible Officials: See attachment for the District’s corrective action plan.

Criteria: 2 CFR 200.405 maintains that costs which are allocable to more than one program be allocated based on the proportional benefit or as determined on any reasonable basis. Condition: Cost allocations for salaries and related expenses allocated across program activities were not supported by allocated amounts in time sheets. Cause: Due to the transition of staff and accounting systems throughout the year, the Organization had inconsistent reconciliations of employee payroll to the vouchers submitted for awards. Context: Cost allocations for salaries and related expenses allocated across program activities were not supported by allocated amounts in time sheets. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: Because the reconciliation process in place was not consistently followed to agree employee payroll reports to cost allocations, it is possible that an employee's time may be inappropriately allocated amongst functional activities, including federal award programs. Recommendation: Procedures should be consistently applied requiring the reconciliation of submitted payroll reports to the employees' actual costs allocated and charged to federal and other programs. View of Responsible Officials: The Organization agrees with the finding, see corrective action plan.

U.S. Department of Agriculture/Passed-through Texas Department of Agriculture Food Distribution Cluster Federal Assistance Listing Number 10.565 – Commodity Supplemental Food Program (Administrative Costs), 10.568 – Emergency Food Assistance Program (Administrative Costs) Award Number: 01576 Criteria or Specific Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowable and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles – Costs charged to Federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, consistently treated, adequately documented, and allocable to the program in proportion to the benefits received. (2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405) Condition: During testing of administrative cost allocations for the Food Distribution Cluster, we identified an error in the entity’s allocation spreadsheet used to distribute administrative costs among Texas Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), Commodity Credit Corp (CCC)-funded TEFAP operations, and Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP). This error caused TEFAP's share of administrative costs to be overstated by $188,459. Reimbursement requests for these overstated amounts were submitted between October and January. Although TEFAP reimbursement caps prevented any actual overpayment for the nine-month period, the early over‑allocation exhausted TEFAP funds sooner, leaving later allowable costs unreimbursed. Cause: A formula error in the allocation spreadsheet double-counted CCC amounts in the TEFAP base, inflating TEFAP’s percentage of shared administrative costs. Effect or Potential Effect: The error caused TEFAP to be assigned more in shared administrative costs than warranted by program benefit. Although reimbursement caps prevented an actual overpayment for the fiscal year, the misallocation exhausted TEFAP funds earlier, leaving later allowable costs unreimbursed. Without correction, the entity could continue to recognize TEFAP administrative and operational reimbursements earlier than warranted in future periods. Questioned Costs: Assistance Listing Number 10.568 – $188,459. Calculated difference between TEFAP funds billed versus actual allocated cost that should have been billed between October and January. Context: The allocation spreadsheet design error caused CCC amounts to be doublecounted in the TEFAP base, inflating TEFAP’s share of pooled administrative costs. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: Correct the allocation methodology to ensure CCC amounts are not double-counted in TEFAP bases and that each program bears costs in proportion to benefit per 2 CFR §200.405. Implement a documented secondary review of the monthly allocation spreadsheet before posting. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management concurs with the finding and recommendation. While the misallocation resulted in overstated TEFAP administrative costs by $188,459, the program’s reimbursement cap and the entity’s actual incurred costs prevented any overbilling or excess Federal draw. See further information on the corrective action plan provided by management.

FINDING 2025-003 Subject: Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants – Subrecipient Monitoring Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants Assistance Listings Number: 84.374 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): Year 2-3, Year 3-4 Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation had not properly designed or implemented a system of internal controls, which would include appropriate segregation of duties, that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance related to the Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants (TSL) funds passed through to subrecipients. The School Corporation received and passed through to subrecipients $6,143,393 of TSL funds. The School Corporation is to clearly identify the award and applicable requirements to the subrecipients, evaluate the risk of noncompliance related to the subrecipients to determine appropriate monitoring of the subaward, and monitor the activities of the subrecipients to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals. The School Corporation did not enter into an agreement with the subrecipients. As such, there is no agreement between the School Corporation and the subrecipients that clearly identifies the award as a subaward or includes all the required data elements. In addition, the School Corporation did not have any policies or procedures in place to evaluate the subrecipients' risk of noncompliance or to monitor the activity of the subrecipients. Per inquiry of the School Corporation, it was determined an evaluation of the risk of noncompliance for the subrecipients was not completed, nor did the subrecipients' files support any such evaluation. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 METROPOLITAN SCHOOL DISTRICT OF DECATUR TOWNSHIP 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 200.332 states: "All pass-through entities must: (a) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the following information at the time of the subaward and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. Required information includes: (1) Federal award identification. (i) Subrecipient name (which must match the name associated with its unique entity identifier); (ii) Subrecipient's unique entity identifier; (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date (see the definition of Federal award date in § 200.1 of this part) of award to the recipient by the Federal agency; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; (vi) Subaward Budget Period Start and End Date; (vii) Amount of Federal Funds Obligated by this action by the pass-through entity to the subrecipient; (viii) Total Amount of Federal Funds Obligated to the subrecipient by the passthrough entity including the current financial obligation; (ix) Total Amount of the Federal Award committed to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity; (x) Federal award project description, as required to be responsive to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA); (xi) Name of Federal awarding agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the Pass-through entity; INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 20 METROPOLITAN SCHOOL DISTRICT OF DECATUR TOWNSHIP SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (xii) Assistance Listings number and Title; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at time of disbursement; (xiii) Identification of whether the award is R&D; and (xiv) Indirect cost rate for the Federal award (including if the de minimis rate is charged) per § 200.414. (2) All requirements imposed by the pass-through entity on the subrecipient so that the Federal award is used in accordance with Federal statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of the Federal award; (3) Any additional requirements that the pass-through entity imposes on the subrecipient in order for the pass-through entity to meet its own responsibility to the Federal awarding agency including identification of any required financial and performance reports; (4) (i) An approved federally recognized indirect cost rate negotiated between the subrecipient and the Federal Government. If no approved rate exists, the pass-through entity must determine the appropriate rate in collaboration with the subrecipient, which is either: (A) The negotiated indirect cost rate between the pass-through entity and the subrecipient; which can be based on a prior negotiated rate between a different PTE and the same subrecipient. If basing the rate on a previously negotiated rate, the pass-through entity is not required to collect information justifying this rate, but may elect to do so; (B) The de minimis indirect cost rate. (ii) The pass-through entity must not require use of a de minimis indirect cost rate if the subrecipient has a Federally approved rate. Subrecipients can elect to use the cost allocation method to account for indirect costs in accordance with § 200.405(d). (5) A requirement that the subrecipient permit the pass-through entity and auditors to have access to the subrecipient's records and financial statements as necessary for the pass-through entity to meet the requirements of this part; and (6) Appropriate terms and conditions concerning closeout of the subaward. (b) Evaluate each subrecipient's risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which may include consideration of such factors as: (1) The subrecipient's prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits including whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F of this part, and the extent to which the same or similar subaward has been audited as a major program; INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 METROPOLITAN SCHOOL DISTRICT OF DECATUR TOWNSHIP SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of Federal awarding agency monitoring (e.g., if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency). (c) Consider imposing specific subaward conditions upon a subrecipient if appropriate as described in § 200.208. (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. Pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: (1) Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. (2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. (3) Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. (4) The pass-through entity is responsible for resolving audit findings specifically related to the subaward and not responsible for resolving crosscutting findings. If a subrecipient has a current Single Audit report posted in the Federal Audit Clearinghouse and has not otherwise been excluded from receipt of Federal funding (e.g., has been debarred or suspended), the pass-through entity may rely on the subrecipient's cognizant audit agency or cognizant oversight agency to perform audit follow-up and make management decisions related to cross-cutting findings in accordance with section § 200.513(a)(3)(vii). Such reliance does not eliminate the responsibility of the pass-through entity to issue subawards that conform to agency and award-specific requirements, to manage risk through ongoing subaward monitoring, and to monitor the status of the findings that are specifically related to the subaward. (e) Depending upon the pass-through entity's assessment of risk posed by the subrecipient (as described in paragraph (b) of this section), the following monitoring tools may be useful for the pass-through entity to ensure proper accountability and compliance with program requirements and achievement of performance goals: (1) Providing subrecipients with training and technical assistance on program-related matters; and (2) Performing on-site reviews of the subrecipient's program operations; (3) Arranging for agreed-upon-procedures engagements as described in § 200.425. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 METROPOLITAN SCHOOL DISTRICT OF DECATUR TOWNSHIP SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by Subpart F of this part when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in § 200.501. (g) Consider whether the results of the subrecipient's audits, on-site reviews, or other monitoring indicate conditions that necessitate adjustments to the pass-through entity's own records. (h) Consider taking enforcement action against noncompliant subrecipients as described in § 200.339 of this part and in program regulations." Cause The School Corporation's management was not aware of the requirements for subrecipient and subaward monitoring compliance. Thus, the School Corporation had not implemented its system of internal controls, which would include appropriate segregation of duties that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance related to the Subrecipient Monitoring compliance requirement. 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. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls, including segregation of duties, to evaluate the subrecipients' risk of noncompliance and adequately monitor the subrecipients. Additionally, policies and procedures should be implemented to ensure appropriate reviews, approvals, and oversight are taking place, as needed, to evaluate and monitor its subrecipients. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - 93.600 Head Start 2025-003 Inconsistencies with Cost Allocations Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.405(d), any cost allocated to a federal award must be allocable, reasonable, and based on a method that is supported and consistently applied. In addition, 2 CFR §200.403(g) requires that costs be adequately documented. A written allocation plan is essential to demonstrate that the allocation of shared costs is equitable and in compliance with Uniform Guidance. Condition: During our audit testing of payroll allocations, we noted the Organization uses a payroll allocation spreadsheet to distribute employee salaries across programs and administrative cost centers. However, the spreadsheet did not include all employees, resulting in staff members’ payroll costs being allocated based on default or informal assumptions rather than established methodology. During our review of expense allocations for both payroll and non-payroll expenses, we noted that the Organization did not consistently follow the cost allocation plan. Cause: The omission of certain employees appears to be the result in oversight in maintaining the allocation spreadsheet and/or the inconsistent communication between HR/payroll and program management. This may have been due to changes in personnel that were not adequately briefed on procedures or lack of review for the allocated expenses. Effect: Failing to include all employees in the payroll allocation policy may result in noncompliance with the Organization’s cost allocation plan and applicable grant requirements or inaccurate distribution of payroll costs to programs. Not following the cost allocation plan increases the risk of noncompliance with grant requirements, inaccurate reporting of program costs, or misstatement of financial results. Questioned Costs: None noted. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization implement a formal process for updating the allocation spreadsheet whenever there are staffing changes and conduct periodic reviews (at least quarterly) to verify that payroll allocations remain accurate and compliant with the cost allocation plan. We recommend the Organization implement a stronger documentation process for shared cost distribution and monitor compliance regularly to ensure all allocations continue to follow the cost allocation plan. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and will document the allocation methods used for employees and expenses.

Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal program title: Social Services Block Grant Assistance Listing Numbers: 93.667 Award Period: January 1, 2024 – June 30, 2027 Type of Finding: • Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance • Material Noncompliance (Modified Opinion) Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.405 and §200.430, costs must be allocable to a particular federal award in proportion to the benefits received, and payroll charges must be supported by underlying records that accurately reflect the work performed. Condition: During testing of payroll and other expense transactions, it was noted that the Organization does not have an appropriate or reasonable cost allocation plan. Nonpayroll related costs are not material to the grant, but if a cost required allocation among various grants, the proper methodology is not in place to ensure that happens. In addition, no contemporaneous time records or supporting allocation documentation were maintained to substantiate the payroll expenditures charged to the grant. Questioned costs: No questioned costs Context: The Organization charged costs based upon the budget, rather than in proportion to the benefits received to the programs. While costs in excess of this grant award were incurred for this program during the year, the proper controls are not in place to ensure compliance with federal regulations. Cause: Staff were not trained in the requirement to maintain accurate time and effort documentation. Effect: Due to the lack of supporting documentation, there is a risk that federal programs were charged for costs that did not directly benefit them, which could ultimately lead to potential questioned costs and repayments obligations. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: If management were to allocate costs to various programs benefited, we recommend that they update and revise the cost allocation plan annually to reflect actual program usage including the board of directors approval. They should implement a time and effort reporting system for all shared staff and provide training to ensure compliance with federal requirements. This should include proper review and approval of all costs, explicitly documented. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding.

2025-003. Payroll and Disbursement (Allowable Costs/Cost Principles) United States Department of Education, Passed-through New York State Department of Education: Special Education Cluster: Special Education Grants to States: IDEA Part B ALN: 84.027 Education Stabilization Funds COVID 19: American Rescue Plan – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief ALN: 84.425U Criteria: Ensure that costs charged to federal awards are allowable, reasonable, and allocable in accordance with terms and conditions of the federal award and the approved grant budget, and maintain a financial management system that provides accurate, current, and complete disclosure of expenditures charged to federal awards prescribed by Subpart E, 2 CFR §200.403 through §200.405 and §200.430, and Subpart D, 2 CFR §200.302. Condition: As required under Subpart E, 2 CFR §200.403 through §200.405 and §200.430, and Subpart D, 2 CFR §200.302, which require a financial management system to provide effective control over accountability for federal funds, and to identify the source and application of funds. During the year, we noted that the District recorded journal entries transferring payroll and disbursement related expenditures from the General Fund to the Special Aid Fund under the Special Education Cluster and Education Stabilization Funds grant codes. These journal entries lacked adequate supporting documentation to demonstrate approvals and if the costs were allowable and allocable to the applicable federal awards. Consequently, we were unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to conclude whether the journalized transactions were properly charged to the federal programs in order to comply with Subpart E, 2 CFR §200.403 through §200.405 and §200.430, and Subpart D, 2 CFR §200.302. Cause: All journalized transactions should include adequate supporting documentation to substantiate the transfer of funds, especially when recorded to federal awards, as prescribed in Subpart E, 2 CFR §200.430 and Subpart D, 2 CFR §200.302. During the current year, we noted the District did not consistently retain or attach original source documentation to journal entries reallocating General Fund expenditures to the Special Aid Fund. Additionally, internal controls were not in place to ensure that such journal entries were reviewed to confirm allowability, reasonableness, allocability, and compliance with the approved budgets for the Special Education Cluster and Education Stabilization Funds prior to being posted, as required by Subpart E, 2 CFR §200.403 through §200.405 and §200.430, and Subpart D, 2 CFR §200.302. Effect: Due to the lack of supporting documentation and approvals, there is an increased risk that unallowable or unsupported costs may have been charged to the Special Education Cluster and Education Stabilization Funds and included in reimbursement requests. As a result, the District could be subject to disallowed costs and potential repayment to the grantor agencies, if costs are determined to be unallowable. Questioned Costs: The dollar amount was undetermined at the time of the audit due to insufficient documentation to support the allowability of the journalized expenditures. Context: For the Special Education Cluster and the Education Stabilization Funds, based on a sample of journal entries, we noted instances where supporting documentation was insufficient. For the Special Education Cluster, one (1) of three (3) journal entries lacked adequate documentation for payroll-related transactions, as original timesheets were not available to verify the employee’s work activity or confirm alignment with the grant’s approved budget. Similarly, for the Education Stabilization Funds, two (2) of three (3) journal entries lacked sufficient supporting documentation. The District did not provide time and effort records for payroll-related transactions or supporting invoices for disbursement transactions, limiting the ability to confirm that these costs were properly documented and consistent with grant requirements. Identification of a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: The District should implement procedures to ensure all journal entries made that reallocate payroll and disbursement expenditures charged to federal grants are supported by complete and adequate documentation and approvals, including time and effort documentation for payroll, and supporting invoices for disbursements as support for the journal entries in accordance with the requirements of Uniform Guidance at Subpart E, 2 CFR §200.403 through §200.405 and §200.430, and Subpart D, 2 CFR §200.302. Views of Responsible Officials of Auditee: The District acknowledged the finding and noted that procedures have been implemented to prevent recurrence. These procedures are intended to ensure all journal entries contain adequate supporting documentation and approvals, including time and effort records for payroll, and supporting invoices for disbursements. Additionally, documentation will be consistently maintained and reviewed for all payroll and disbursement expenditures reallocated through journal entries and charged to federal grants in compliance with Subpart E, 2 CFR §200.403 through §200.405 and §200.430, and Subpart D, 2 CFR §200.302.

Criteria or specific requirement: According to 2 CFR §200.303, 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. According to 2 CFR §200.405(d), if a cost benefits two or more projects or activities in proportions that can be determined without undue effort or cost, the cost must be allocated to the projects based on the proportional benefit However, when those proportions cannot be determined because of the interrelationship of the work involved, then the costs may be allocated or transferred to benefitted projects on any reasonable documented basis. According to 2 CFR §200.431(b), the cost of fringe benefits in the form of regular compensation paid to employees during periods of authorized absences from the job, such as for annual leave, family-related leave, sick leave, holidays, court leave, military leave, administrative leave, and other similar benefits, are allowable if all of the following criteria are met: (1) They are provided under established written leave policies; (2) The costs are equitably allocated to all related activities, including Federal awards; and, (3) The accounting basis (cash or accrual) selected for costing each type of leave is consistently followed by the recipient or subrecipient or a specified grouping of employees. Condition: During our testing, we noted that the Department did not allocate leave to grants in accordance with the time and effort employees spent on the grants. Questioned costs: $887 Context: During our testing of twenty payroll disbursements, we noted that the Department had a net undercharge of $887 to eight grants. Cause: The Department was unaware of the federal regulations pertaining to leave allocations. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in possible under or over charges to the grant. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department develop and implement a written policy for leave allocation consistent with federal regulations. Also, we recommend that the Department provides training to ensure employees understand and comply with the written policy. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions: The Department recognizes the audit finding and its responsibility to comply with 2 CFR §200.405(d). Corrective action was taken. The Department revised the procedures and will no longer charge any type of leave activity to a grant, effective July 1, 2025, and for the foreseeable future. An email was sent out by the CFO on June 26, 2025 advising all Department employees about this change. The Federal Aid Cost Tracking System (FACTS) has also been changed to block access to all grants for any leave time reporting code entries. If a system is developed in the future to enable the allocation of leave consistent will the federal regulations, training will be provided for all employees. Responsible Employee Position: CFO Timeline: July 31, 2026

Program: AL 10.561 – State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; AL 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; AL 93.563 – Child Support Services; AL 93.566 – Refugee and Entrant Assistance State/Replacement Designee Administered Programs; AL 93.575 Child Care and Development Block Grant; AL 93.658 – Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 93.659 – Adoption Assistance; AL 93.767 – Children’s Health Insurance Program; AL 93.778 – Grants to States for Medicaid – Allowable Cost/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 243NE406S2514, FFY 2024; 253NE406S2514, FFY 2025; 2201NETANF, FFY 2022; 2501NESCSS, FFY 2025; 2401NERCMA, FFY 2024; 2301NECCDD, FFY 2023; 2401NECCDD, FFY 2024; 2401NEFOST, FFY 2024; 2501NEFOST, FFY 2025; 2401NEADPT, FFY 2024; 2501NEADPT, FFY 2025; 2405NE5021, FFY 2024; 2505NE5021, FFY 2025; 2405NE5ADM, FFY 2024; 2505NE5ADM, FFY 2025 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: Per 2 CFR § 400.1 (January 1, 2024, and January 1, 2025), the U.S. Department of Agriculture adopted the OMB Uniform Guidance as its policies and procedures for uniform administrative requirements, cost principles, and audit requirements for Federal awards. Per 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2024) and 2 CFR § 200.405(a) (January 1, 2024, and January 1, 2025), costs are allocable to Federal awards or other cost objectives if the costs involved are assignable to those Federal awards or other cost objectives in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2024) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2024, and January 1, 2025) require costs to be necessary, reasonable, and adequately documented. 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2024) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2024, and January 1, 2025) require the State to “maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the [State] is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.” 45 CFR § 75.302 (October 1, 2024) and 2 CFR § 200.302 (January 1, 2024, and January 1, 2025) require financial management systems of the State sufficient to permit both preparation of required reports and tracing of funds to a level of expenditures adequate to establish that the use of those funds was in accordance with applicable regulations. Per Title 471 NAC 25, Attachment A, Claiming Issues, C. Offset of Revenues (eff. 10/4/2020) and the Medicaid School-Based Administrative Claiming Guide provided by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (May 2003), Section V (“Claiming Issues”), C. (“Offset Revenues”), “[a] government program may not be reimbursed in excess of its actual costs, i.e., make a profit.” EnterpriseOne is the official accounting system for the State of Nebraska, and all expenditures are generated from it. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that amounts charged to Federal funds are proper. 45 CFR § 75.511 (October 1, 2024) and 2 CFR § 200.511 (January 1, 2024, and January 1, 2025) require the auditee to prepare a summary schedule of prior audit findings. Subsection (b)(2) of both regulations also requires that, when the audit findings were not corrected or only partially corrected, the auditee must describe the reasons for the findings recurrence and planned corrective action. Condition: Inadequate procedures to ensure the accuracy of journal entries and adjustments to the Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP), resulting in multiple Federal programs being overcharged. A similar finding was noted in the prior audit. The Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings lists the status as completed. Repeat Finding: 2024-037 Questioned Costs: $3,986,559 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: We selected 14 journal entries related to the PACAP. We noted the following: • Four journal entries to reconcile Foster Care Title IV-E expenditures to the PACAP contained multiple errors, including using aid amounts as administrative costs, miscalculating the portion of the Bridge to Independence (B2I) program that can be charged to the grant, not accounting for all amounts already charged to the grant, and adding in additional amounts earned that did not exist or were calculated incorrectly. For one entry, the Agency not only calculated the wrong amounts to charge to the grant, but then posted the exact same entry from the previous quarter instead of the current quarter’s entry. In total, $306,667 was overcharged to the Foster Care Title IV-E grant due to these errors. We consider this amount to be Federal questioned costs. • Another journal entry for Foster Care Title IV-E was posted to correct an error in previous quarters’ journal entries. The Agency was charging program-related training costs at a 50% Federal financial participation rate (FFP), while such activity is allowable at a 75% FFP. However, the Agency did not correctly account for all the costs that had already been charged to the grant for training costs. This error led to the Agency charging an additional $1,777,318 in costs to the Federal award that was already charged to the grant. We consider this amount to be Federal questioned costs. • One journal entry was to reconcile Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) expenditures to the PACAP. The Agency’s calculation included costs earned by the Summer EBT program but failed to include amounts already charged to the Summer EBT Federal grant of $72,292. Additionally, the Summer EBT program is a separate Federal grant from SNAP and should have been accounted for separately. The full $72,292 is the Federal portion and is considered questioned costs. • One journal entry to reconcile Medicaid administrative expenditures to the PACAP did not properly account for $35,114 in personnel costs that had already been charged to the grant. As a result, the Federal funds were overcharged this amount and are considered questioned costs. • One journal entry to allocate costs related to Field Office Administration to various programs across the Agency for the month of March 2025 was calculated incorrectly and did not account for all programs involved. Each quarter, Field Office Administration costs are allocated in the PACAP to various programs based on hours worked in the field offices. The journal entry tested was meant to do the same calculation, but on a monthly basis, so programs can keep track of their budgets more timely. When calculating the amounts to allocate, however, the Agency used six months of costs, or $1,798,755, rather than just the costs that occurred in March 2025, or $171,255. Further, the Agency did not move the costs to all of the applicable programs, such as Foster Care and SNAP. Lastly, the Agency used the Labor Hours from the quarter ending December 31, 2023, rather than the quarter ending March 31, 2025. Due to these errors, Medicaid was overcharged $131,637, which are considered Federal questioned costs. • For one journal entry to move costs from the State General Fund to a Cash Fund for $1,766,949, the Agency used the incorrect business units within EnterpriseOne, which resulted in multiple Federal programs being overcharged through the PACAP, as listed below. We consider these to be Federal questioned costs. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. We also selected six adjustments made to the PACAP and noted the following: • Two adjustments tested were related to the Medicaid School-based Administration program. The Agency uses a contractor to determine the allowable Medicaid activities by school district, and the amounts owed to each school district, for the Federal share of expenses. Schools are responsible for covering matching funds. The Agency makes an adjustment to the Cost Allocation Plan to account for the matching funds that are not shown on the State Accounting records. However, we noted that the Agency is calculating this adjustment based on the amount of allowable expenses provided by the contract, and not the actual amount of Federal funds paid to the schools. The Agency reduces the amount to pay to the schools for missing provider enrollment, negative claims, and/or recoupments. We then reviewed the CMS-64 reports and noted that the Agency is claiming the entire amount of allowable expenses provided by the contractor, and not just the amount paid to the schools. It is not reasonable to claim costs on the CMS-64 reports that are not actually spent. We recalculated the amounts that should have been reported based on the actual amounts paid to the schools and noted that the Agency overclaimed $566,018 in Federal costs. Of the $566,018, $110,970 is due to a 3% fee for administration that the Agency subtracts from each school’s payment. The Agency then essentially pays itself this amount through a reconciliation journal entry. Administrative costs of the Agency are distributed through the PACAP to benefiting programs and would include charges to Medicaid; therefore, the Federal portion of the 3% administrative fee should have been credited back to Medicaid, but it was not. The $566,018 is considered Federal questioned costs. • Two adjustments tested were to correct prior period allocation errors. Both errors were due to a finding from the Fiscal Year 2024 Single audit. The Agency’s calculations to correct allocations included errors, such as using the incorrect statistics, using the incorrect amounts, and inputting the incorrect amounts into the cost allocation system. These errors resulted in the following programs being overcharged. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Cause: Inadequate procedures to ensure that adjustments to the PACAP are proper, and journal entries are appropriate for each program. Effect: Unallowable expenditures were charged to Federal funds and an increased risk for errors, fraud, and noncompliance with Federal regulations. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure adjusting entries are complete and accurate. We further recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure compliance with Federal regulations. Management Response: The Agency agrees with the finding.

Program: AL 10.561 – State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; AL 93.090 – Guardianship Assistance; AL 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; AL 93.563 – Child Support Services; AL 93.566 – Refugee and Entrant Assistance State/Replacement Designee Administered Programs; AL 93.575 Child Care and Development Block Grant; AL 93.658 – Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 93.659 – Adoption Assistance; AL 93.767 – Children’s Health Insurance Program; AL 93.778 – Grants to States for Medicaid – Allowable Cost/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 243NE406S2514, FFY 2024; 253NE406S2514, FFY 2025; 2501NEGARD, FFY 2025; 2201NETANF, FFY 2022; 2401NESCSS, FFY 2024; 2501NESCSS, FFY 2025; 2401NERCMA, FFY 2024; 2401NECCDD, FFY 2024; 2501NECCDD, FFY 2025; 2401NEFOST, FFY 2024; 2501NEFOST, FFY 2025; 2401NEADPT, FFY 2024; 2501NEADPT, FFY 2025; 2405NE5021, FFY 2024; 2505NE5021, FFY 2025; 2405NE5ADM, FFY 2024; 2505NE5ADM, FFY 2025 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: Per 2 CFR § 400.1 (January 1, 2024, and January 1, 2025), the U.S. Department of Agriculture adopted the OMB Uniform Guidance as its policies and procedures for uniform administrative requirements, cost principles, and audit requirements for Federal awards. 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2024) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2024, and January 1, 2025) require the State to “maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the [State] is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.” 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2024) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2024, and January 1, 2025) require costs to be necessary, reasonable, and adequately documented. 45 CFR § 75.302 (October 1, 2024) and 2 CFR § 200.302 (January 1, 2024, and January 1, 2025) require financial management systems of the State sufficient to permit both preparation of required reports and tracing of funds to a level of expenditures adequate to establish that the use of those funds was in accordance with applicable regulations. Per 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2024) and 2 CFR § 200.405(a) (January 1, 2024, and January 1, 2025), costs are allocable to Federal awards or other cost objectives if the costs involved are assignable to those Federal awards or other cost objectives in accordance with relative benefits received. Good internal control and sound accounting practices require policies and procedures to ensure that all administrative costs are allocated to the proper funding source for activities performed. 45 CFR § 75.511 (October 1, 2024) and 2 CFR § 200.511 (January 1, 2024, and January 1, 2025) require the auditee to prepare a summary schedule of prior audit findings. Subsection (b)(2) of both regulations also requires that when the audit findings were not corrected or only partially corrected, the auditee must describe the reasons for the findings recurrence and planned corrective action. Condition: The Agency did not properly charge Federal programs for 9 of 27 allocations tested. A similar finding has been noted since 2013. Repeat Finding: 2024-038 Questioned Costs: $2,743,946 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: We tested 27 PACAP allocations. We noted errors for 9 of 27 allocations tested, resulting in various programs undercharged or overcharged. We consider the overcharged to be questioned costs. We noted the following: RMTS Allocations For four of four allocations tested based on the Random Moment Time Study (RMTS) observations, the RMTS Summary report was not allocated correctly to the various State and Federal programs. Additionally, costs were included in the allocations that were either misassigned or unrelated to the cost centers being allocated. The following RMTS allocations were tested: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. • RMTS observations were not properly determined. We reviewed two quarters to determine if observations were correctly counted. The September quarter allocation included 4,481 activity observations and the March quarter included 4,402 observations. We noted the following: o Four responses were invalidated by supervisors; however, these responses were originally left blank as they were not completed by employees. This resulted in four additional responses being created as activities funded by the State. o For two responses that were not included in the sub-sample for supervisory review, the supervisor performed a review and invalidated the moments. As these were not originally selected for supervisor review, this invalidation resulted in two additional responses being created and recorded as activities funded by the State as well as the original responses remaining under their original funding source. o One response was originally recorded as SNAP and was later invalidated by the supervisor. This moment was incorrectly not moved to “Non-DHHS Activity” and remained coded as SNAP on the final allocation. • The Agency did not properly allocate observations in accordance with the PACAP for 7 of the 81 activities in the quarter ended September 31, 2024, and 2 of the 75 activities in the quarter ended March 31, 2025: o Six of the observations included Child Protection Initial Assessment. Per the PACAP, Child Protection Initial Assessment is allocated to Foster Care, Guardianship, and Adoption. The Agency did not properly update the formula used to calculate each quarterly allocation for Child Protection Initial Assessment from the previous quarter. In both quarters tested, this resulted in overcharges to the Adoption and Guardianship programs and undercharges to the Foster Care program. o Two of the observations should have been allocated evenly between SNAP and the State; however, the observation was incorrectly allocated three ways, between SNAP, the State, and the Social Services Block Grant Program (SSBG). This resulted in overcharges to SSBG and undercharges to SNAP and the State. o One of the observations should have been allocated with two-thirds to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program (TANF) and one-third to SNAP; however, the observation was incorrectly allocated evenly between TANF and SNAP. This resulted in overcharges to SNAP and undercharges to TANF. Additionally, two business units were misassigned to the RMTS allocations. • One business unit with total charges of $125,246 during State fiscal year 2025 was assigned to the Economic Assistance RMTS allocation when it should have been assigned to the P&S RMTS allocation. Impacts of this error included undercharges to Foster Care and overcharges to SNAP. • The second business unit with total charges of $5,433,458 during State fiscal year 2025 was assigned to the P&S RMTS; however, it should not have been assigned to either RMTS allocation as the costs were related to the Youth Rehabilitation Treatment Center in Kearney, Nebraska. This resulted in overcharges to Federal programs, including Foster Care and Adoption Assistance. Questioned costs by Program for RMTS Allocations are as follows: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Time Study Allocation One allocation tested was based on a time study of the Legal and Regulatory Services Team for the quarter ended March 31, 2025, which allocated $1,126,957 of administrative costs. The time study was completed annually by the attorneys of the Legal and Regulatory Services Team. We noted the following issues regarding the time study and the allocation tested. • The Agency’s processes and procedures for the time study were not adequately defined in the PACAP, and there were no written processes and procedures for how the time study would be completed. • The time study used for the basis of the allocation tested consisted of only 26 of the 33 attorneys that were part of the team, and the time study was only conducted during a two-week period. Additionally, a paralegal also completed the time study, which was against the Agency’s stated procedures. • An Internal Auditor’s payroll costs were also included in the allocation; however, the Internal Auditor was not part of the Legal and Regulatory Services Team. This resulted in $16,281 in misallocated costs. • Hours coded on the time study for “Child Welfare” were all allocated directly to Foster Care; however, the “Child Welfare” hours should have also been allocated to Adoption, Guardianship, and other State programs. • Hours coded on the time study for “TANF” were incorrectly charged to LIHEAP. As the same time study was used for allocations for all four quarters of the State fiscal year 2025, we calculated the impact for all four quarters. Questioned costs by program for the Time Study allocation are as follows: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Recipient Counts The PACAP includes five cost centers allocated to State and Federal programs based on recipient counts per NFOCUS and MMIS reports. NFOCUS and MMIS are applications used to manage various programs such as SNAP, Child Care, TANF, and Medicaid. Over $39.5 million in costs were allocated using these counts during the State fiscal year 2025. We tested the allocation for the quarter ended September 30, 2024, and noted the following: • The Agency did not maintain the detail for the recipients of Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The numbers they used in the allocations for Medicaid and CHIP were maintained on a summary spreadsheet. The counts used for the allocation tested, pulled from the summary spreadsheet, did not include Medicaid Expansion recipients in the count of Medicaid recipients, thus undercharging Medicaid for the quarter tested and overcharging all other programs in the allocation. Furthermore, when we requested detailed reports to support the numbers on the summary spreadsheet, the Agency was unable to provide detailed reports at the time of the allocation. Instead, the reports showed recipients for Medicaid and CHIP, for September 2024 as of August 2025. The detailed report did not agree to the summary spreadsheets. • Other recipient counts were off due to clerical errors: o The recipient count for the TANF Solely State Funded Plan was incorrect. The recipient count used by the Agency was zero, but the supported number was 2,017 recipients. o The recipient count for SNAP included 1,609 more recipients than what was supported. Having recalculated the quarter’s allocation, based on the supported recipient counts available, we have the following questioned costs: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Labor Hours Statistics The PACAP includes 36 cost centers allocated to State and Federal programs through labor hours. Over $295.6 million in costs were allocated by labor hours during the 2025 State fiscal year. We tested seven of these allocations, and one had errors. Below is a summary of allocations tested: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. For the allocation tested for Cost Center 25C23545, we noted that five business units related to Home and Community Based Services were being incorrectly mapped to Cost Center 25C23545. Additionally, the labor hours statistic should have allocated the costs throughout the Finance and Program Integrity Section, but it only allocated costs to one unit within this section. These errors resulted in CHIP being overcharged $85,174. Time and Effort Report Allocations We tested the allocation of cost center 25C21940 Field Office Resource Development for the quarter ended September 30, 2024, which allocated $1,077,853 of administrative costs, based on Time & Effort reports. During testing, we noted the payroll costs for 71 employees were charged to the cost center; however, four of the employees’ payroll costs should not have been charged to the cost center. The four employees included three Child and Family Services Specialist Supervisors (CFSSS), and a Program Specialist. The three CFSSS employees were, at one time, Resource Developers; however, when their roles changed, their pay source was not updated. The Program Specialist has been a Program Specialist since he was hired in April 2022. Because of this error, the following programs were overcharged. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Other We tested the allocation of cost center 25C23823 iServe IAPD H971 – Shared, which allocated $17,529,039 in project costs for State fiscal year 2025. The iServe Nebraska Portal, which is an online application for Nebraskans to apply for benefits from Federal and State programs, began implementation in July 2021 and went live in October 2023, replacing ACCESSNebraska. For the implementation phase of the project, the Agency allocated costs only to the following four programs: LIHEAP, TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid. However, there are other Federal and State programs that are utilizing, or intend to utilize, the iServe application. We reviewed documentation obtained in the prior year, including correspondence from the Agency’s Federal contacts, which stated the following: As long as SNAP, Medicaid, LIHEAP, and TANF are the only benefiting programs for the State’s iServe Nebraska Portal project, the State may just include these four programs in the development of its cost allocation plan. If/when the State decides to add other Federal programs that will benefit from enhancements to the portal, it will need to revisit and adjust its cost allocation plan. In addition to SNAP, Medicaid, LIHEAP, and TANF, other programs went live during the previous fiscal year, including Child Care, SSBG, Refugee Assistance, and various State programs. We noted the following: • The allocation method was last updated by the Agency, and approved by the Federal grantor, as of September 28, 2023, to include the Child Care program and some State-funded programs, such as Assistance to the Aged, Blind, or Disabled Program (AABD) and State Disability Program (SDP). However, the Agency-provided implementation date for Child Care, AABD, and SDP was the same as the implementation date for the initial four programs, July 26, 2021. So it remains unclear why all benefiting programs were not being included in the allocation of this cost center from the start of implementation. • The SSBG program began implementation in October 2023 and went live in April 2024, but no costs have been allocated to this program. Similarly, the Refugee Assistance program began implementation in March 2024 and went live in July 2024, but no costs have been allocated to this program either. We were unable to determine questioned costs for the cost center. The total costs allocated from the iServe project for fiscal year 2025 are noted below. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Cause: Inadequate procedures to ensure that allocations were adequately supported and calculated correctly. Effect: Without adequate documentation to support the allocation of costs, there is an increased risk of programs not being charged the proper amounts. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure the following: employee pay is recorded correctly; system reports are set up correctly, and formatting instructions are followed; and costs are properly allocated and charged, based on supporting documentation. Management Response: The Agency agrees with the finding.

Finding 2025-001: Questioned Costs – Allowable Costs/Costs Principles (material weakness) Statement of Condition: During our testing of expenditures applied to the Economic Adjustment Assistance Program, we identified that the College charged federal funds to a capital project that had previously been paid for with bond proceeds. The bond proceeds were restricted for use on the same project for which federal funds were awarded. Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.403(a), costs charged to a federal award must be necessary, reasonable, and allocable to the federal program. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.404(a) states that a cost is reasonable if the cost is generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the recipient’s operation or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award. Further, 2 CFR 200.405(a) notes that a cost is allocable to a Federal award or other cost objective if the cost is assignable to that Federal award or other cost objective in accordance with the relative benefits received. In addition, the cost must be incurred specifically for the Federal award. 2 CFR 200.406(a) states that applicable credits refer to transactions that offset or reduce direct costs allocable to a federal award. To the extent that such credits are received by the recipient relate to allowable costs, they must be credited to the federal award either as a cost reduction or cash refund, as appropriate. Effect of Condition: Federal funds were used to reimburse costs that had already been paid with bond proceeds, resulting in unallowable costs being charged to the federal program. Cause of Condition: The College did not have adequate controls in place to ensure that costs charged to the federal program had not already been funded by another source. Questioned Costs: The questioned costs total approximately $1,100,000, representing the federal funds used to pay for the capital project already funded by bond proceeds. Recommendation: We recommend that the College implement and enforce procedures to ensure that all costs charged to federal programs comply with the Cost Principles stated in Subpart E of 2 CFR 200.400.

2025 – 036. Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Program Title: Community Development Block Grants/State's program and Non-Entitlement Grants in Hawaii Assistance Listing: 14.228 Federal Grant ID Number: Various Pass-Through Entity: Not applicable Award Period: Various Type of Finding: Significant deficiency in internal control over compliance, other matters Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.405(a) states that a cost is allocable to a Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 2 CFR § 200.303 requires that the recipient and subrecipient 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. Condition: Costs charged to the program were not adequately allocated. Cause: The Office failed to ensure costs were properly allocated based upon the approved cost allocation plan for FY25. Effect: The potential for overcharging the grant exists when costs charged to the federal award are not properly allocated. Questioned Costs: $12,949. The Disaster Relief and Mitigation grants were overcharged by $4,316 and $8,633, respectively. Context: One of twenty-two expenditures tested had costs improperly charged to the federal award. The transaction involved allowable charges that benefited multiple grant programs and activities but were not properly allocated to match the Office’s cost allocation plan for FY25. Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: Not applicable Recommendation: We recommend the Office review and update its procedures to ensure all costs charged to the grant are properly allocated to applicable grants and funding sources based upon their yearly cost allocation plan. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions: See management’s response on page 203.

2025 – 003: Eligible Expenditures Federal Agency: Department of Health and Human Services Federal Program Title: Congressional Directives Assistance Listing Number: 93.493 Award Period: September 30, 2023 – September 29, 2026 Type of Finding: • Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance • Other Matters Criteria or Specific Requirement: The Code of Federal Regulations 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E, requires that expenses be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles (200.403(a)) and allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to the Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received (200.405). Condition: During our testing of 40 expenditures for cash disbursement testing, we noted 3 items for a total of $419.90 from the University of Maine Augusta were incorrectly coded to the grant. Questioned Costs: None Context: The University's review and controls around charging amounts to the grant did not catch an incorrectly coded expense. Cause: The University’s processes and controls did not ensure that all expenses charged to the grant were valid expenditures. Effect: Ineligible expenditures were charged to the grant. Repeat Finding: No. Auditors’ Recommendation: We recommend that the University reviews its procedures around review and approval of expenditures to ensure that only valid expenditures are reported. Views of Responsible Officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.

Condition: For FAL 10.185, all 40 vendor disbursements tested lacked evidence of supervisory approval, as the payment request forms were not signed by the designated approver prior to payment. For FAL 10.558, 27 of thirty-two vendor disbursements tested lacked documented supervisory approval prior to payment. Finally for FAL 84.010A, two of the ten vendor disbursements tested lacked documented supervisory approval prior to payment. In each noted instance, payments were processed without evidence that the School performed and documented a review in accordance with established internal control procedures. Criteria: According to 2 CFR §200.303, Internal Controls, non-Federal entities must establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance the entity is managing the award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Further, under 2 CFR §§200.403, Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs, and 200.405, Allocable Costs, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in federal regulations or award terms. Cause: The School did not consistently enforce established approval procedures, and monitoring controls were not operating effectively to ensure payment request forms were reviewed and signed prior to disbursement. Effect: Failure to document supervisory approval increases the risk that unallowable, inaccurate, or unsupported expenditures could be processed and charged to federal programs without detection. Recommendation: We recommend that the School enforce existing policies requiring documented supervisory approval prior to processing payments and implement monitoring procedures to ensure approval documentation is completed and retained. In addition, the School should strengthen pre-payment review procedures to ensure expenditures are evaluated for allowability, necessity, reasonableness, and proper allocation in accordance with 2 CFR Part 200 and applicable program requirements. Training should be provided to personnel responsible for processing and approving federal program expenditures to reinforce compliance responsibilities. Management’s Response: The School’s responsible officials’ views and planned corrective action are in its corrective action plan at the end of the report.

Condition: Expenditures for the Child and Adult Care Food Program were incorrectly reported as expenditures to other nutrition programs. Criteria: According to 2 CFR §200.303, Internal Controls, non-Federal entities must establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance the entity is managing the award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Further, under 2 CFR §§200.400, Policy Guide, and 200.405, Allocable Costs, costs are to be adequately supported as charged to the Federal award and must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in federal regulations or award terms. Cause: The School did not understand the need to properly identify expenditures to the appropriate formula grant nutrition program. Effect: Although expenditures were properly reported collectively over all the nutrition programs, expenditures for specific nutrition programs were incorrectly reported for various separately funded nutrition programs. Recommendation: We recommend that the School properly identify and report nutrition program expenditures by program. Management’s Response: The School’s responsible officials’ views and planned corrective action are in its corrective action plan at the end of the report.

Allowable Costs/Cost Principles – Cost Allocation Plan – Allocation Statistics Program Names: COVID-19 Medical Assistance Program (Medicaid, Title XIX) (Assistance Listing 93.778) Medical Assistance Program (Medicaid, Title XIX) (Assistance Listing 93.778) Federal Award Agency: United States Department of Health and Human Services Award Years: Federal Fiscal Years 2024 and 2025 Federal Award Numbers: 2405CT5MAP and 2505CT5MAP Program Name: Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) (Assistance Listing 93.767) Federal Award Agency: United States Department of Health and Human Services Award Years: Federal Fiscal Years 2024 and 2025 Federal Award Numbers: 2305CT3002 and 2405CT5021 Program Name: State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (Assistance Listing 10.561) Federal Award Agency: United States Department of Agriculture Award Years: Federal Fiscal Years 2024 and 2025 Federal Award Numbers: Various Background The Department of Social Services (DSS) administrative costs are allocable to federal and state programs as specified in the DSS federally approved cost allocation plan (CAP). DSS allocates administrative costs to programs based on allocation statistics. Most allocation statistics are based on the number of staff hours spent supporting programs DSS administers. CAP Schedule .4 details the administrative cost allocations and the applicable allocation statistics. Criteria Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.405(a) states that costs are allocable to a federal award or other cost objective if the cost is assignable to that federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. Title 45 CFR Part 95.507 requires a state's CAP to contain procedures used to identify, measure, and allocate all costs to each of the programs operated by the state agency. Condition Our review of the Schedule .4 and supporting data for the quarter ended March 31, 2025, disclosed that DSS did not accurately allocate quality control unit costs to three federal awards. Federal Award Error Amount Medicaid Understated $ 48,461 Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Overstated 114,533 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Understated 66,072 Total Error $ 229,066 Context The department’s quality control unit ensures fiscal and programmatic integrity of DSS programs including payment error rate measurement reviews. DSS incurred $4,271,925 in administrative costs for the quality control and payment error rate measurement unit during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025. The sample was not statistically valid. Questioned Costs We computed questioned costs of $74,446 in CHIP funds by applying the applicable federal financial participation rate to the unallowed expenditures. Effect DSS received excess federal reimbursement for CHIP and underclaimed federal reimbursement for Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Cause Clerical errors went unnoticed during the supervisory review process. Prior Audit Finding We have not previously reported this finding. Recommendation The Department of Social Services should strengthen internal controls to ensure that it allocates costs to the appropriate federal award in accordance with federal regulations. The Department of Social Services should return federal reimbursements for unallowable costs that it claimed to Children’s Health Insurance Program federal awards. Views of Responsible Officials “The Department agrees with this finding. The Department will review internal controls to identify possible corrective actions.”

2025-005 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Pass Thru Entity: Oklahoma State Department of Education Program: Child and Adult Care Food Program Assistance Listing: 10.558 Grant Period: Year ending June 30, 2025 Compliance Requirement: B. Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Type of Finding: Material Weakness & Non-Compliance Condition: Documentation was not kept for personnel services paid with funds. In addition, supporting documentation was not maintained for allocation of expenditures between food service programs. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.405 require allocable costs in general to be allocated to projects based on proportional benefits. 2 CFR 200.430(g) requires that charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be base on records that accurately reflect the work performed (Time and Effort). Cause: Failure to understand requirements for federally funded programs. Context: Personnel costs paid with federal funds where personnel work on multiple federal programs must be supported by monthly time and effort records for amounts paid. Allocation of expenditure must also have documentation completed and maintained supporting the split between the federal programs. Effect: Noncompliance with Uniform Guidance Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend that the District maintain time and effort for employees paid with the federal funds. We also recommend that District document the method used for allocation of costs between programs and maintain the documentation. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: The District will implement time and effort documentation for employees paid with federal funds. The District has already implemented allocation process on the Child Nutrition invoices in FY26.

Finding Number: 2025-011 State/Educational Agency(s): Arkansas Department of Commerce – Arkansas Economic Development Commission Pass-Through Entity: Not Applicable AL Number(s) and Program Title(s): 21.029 – Coronavirus Capital Project Funds Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award Number(s): CPFFN0186 Federal Award Year(s): 2022 Compliance Requirement(s) Affected: Allowable Cost/Cost Principles Type of Finding: Noncompliance Repeat Finding: Not applicable Criteria: As outlined in the Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E, regarding Cost Principles, allowable costs must meet the following criteria: (1) be necessary, reasonable, and allocable for the performance of the federal award, (2) be accorded consistent treatment as either a direct cost or indirect cost, and (3) be adequately documented. In accordance with 2 CFR § 200.405(d), if a cost benefits two or more projects or activities and can be determined without undue effort or cost, the cost must be allocated to the projects based on the proportional benefit. However, when those proportions cannot be determined because of the interrelationship of the work involved, then the costs may be allocated or transferred to benefited projects on any reasonable, documented basis. Condition and Context: The Arkansas State Broadband Office (ASBO) administers several grants that provide capital projects funding for the construction of infrastructure for broadband networks. The Coronavirus Capital Projects Fund grant allows the agency to request reimbursement for administrative costs incurred over the period of performance that do not exceed the greater of five percent of the total amount of the grant received under the Capital Projects Fund or $25,000. ALA reviewed five administrative cost reimbursement drawdowns totaling $887,309, from 16 administrative drawdowns totaling $1,338,559, and noted the Agency allocated staff salaries and other professional services to three different broadband grant programs. The Agency did not maintain support for the basis used to allocate the administrative expenses to the grants. Additionally, ALA recalculated the draw amounts using the Agency’s allocation percentages and noted the Agency had overdrawn on the Capital Projects Fund grant by $22,516. Statistically Valid Sample: Not a statistically valid sample Questioned Costs: $22,516 Cause: Determination of percentage allocations was based on verbal communications between ASBO staff members; however, the Agency did not maintain documentation to support these determinations. Also, management did not ensure calculations of the drawdown amounts were accurate. Effect: Failure to properly document the basis for the allocation of administrative costs could lead to a disproportional amount of costs charged to the various grants. As a result, the grants could exceed the maximum amounts allowed by Federal Guidance. Recommendation: ALA staff recommend the Agency develop an administrative cost allocation percentage based on the proportional benefit to each grant. The Agency should maintain documentation to support the determination. Management should ensure the percentages are accurately applied to the respective grants prior to submitting any request for reimbursement. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Administrative costs charged to CPF were program-related and remained within the statutory administrative cap. ASBO acknowledges, however, that documentation supporting the internal methodology used to allocate administrative costs across multiple broadband funding streams was not sufficiently formalized during the period reviewed. The identified variance of $22,516 reflects an administrative reconciliation issue rather than an unallowable expenditure, and the variance amount was reduced from a subsequent administrative cost drawdown. Moving forward, the team will more formalize its administrative cost allocation methodology to include a narrative explanation to support allocation percentages, as well as authorizing signatures. Anticipated Completion Date: June 30, 2026 Contact Person: Glen Howie State Broadband Director Arkansas State Broadband Office 1 Commerce Way Little Rock, AR 72202 (501) 683-6000 broadband@arkansas.gov

Federal Agency: National Science Foundation Federal Program Name: Research and Development Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 47.076 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: R&D - 2025 Award Period: June 1, 2024 to May 31, 2025 Type of Finding: • Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance • Other Matters Criteria or specific requirement: The Code of Federal Regulations 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E, requires that expenses be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principals (200.403(a)) and allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to the Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received (200.405). Condition: We noted that one out of 8 items selected for period of performance was incorrectly coded to an R&D grant. Questioned costs: $100 Context: The University's review and internal controls over R&D grant charges did not identify an expense that had been incorrectly coded. Cause: The University’s processes and controls did not ensure that all expenses charged to R&D grants were valid R&D expenditures. Effect: An incorrect amount of R&D expenditures was drawn down. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that the University review its procedures around review and approval of R&D expenditures to ensure that only valid expenditures are reported. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.

Federal Agency: National Science Foundation Federal Program Name: Research and Development Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 47.076 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: R&D - 2025 Award Period: June 1, 2024 to May 31, 2025 Type of Finding: • Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance • Other Matters Criteria or specific requirement: The Code of Federal Regulations 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E, requires that expenses be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principals (200.403(a)) and allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to the Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received (200.405). Condition: We noted that one out of 8 items selected for period of performance was incorrectly coded to an R&D grant. Questioned costs: $100 Context: The University's review and internal controls over R&D grant charges did not identify an expense that had been incorrectly coded. Cause: The University’s processes and controls did not ensure that all expenses charged to R&D grants were valid R&D expenditures. Effect: An incorrect amount of R&D expenditures was drawn down. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that the University review its procedures around review and approval of R&D expenditures to ensure that only valid expenditures are reported. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.

Finding 2024-007 – Allowable Costs (Significant Deficiency and Non-compliance)(Repeat finding) Information on the Federal Program: U.S. Department of Justice, Assistance Listing No.16.575 Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) Criteria: 2 CFR 200.405 establishes requirements for costs allocated to a grant award. These requirements include that costs must be approximated using a reasonable method. Condition/Context: We selected 50 disbursements for testing. Of those 50, 25 were for payroll and 25 were non-payroll disbursements. Of the 25 non-payroll, there was 1 instance in which the cost allocated was not properly documented or supported by a reasonable method. Cause: Expense allocated to the VOCA grant was not properly supported. Effect: The Organization did not adequately document allocation methods required by allowable cost compliance requirements. Questioned costs: $216 Recommendation: We recommend the Organization strengthen its policies and procedures surrounding the disbursement process to ensure the Organization is in compliance with all required documentation and disclosure requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. See Management’s View and Corrective Action Plan included at the end of the report.

Item: 2024-001 Assistance Listing Number: 93.914 Program: HIV Emergency Relief Project Grants Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Pass-Through Agencies: Maricopa County Department of Public Health Services Pass-Through Grantor Identifying Number: A23MHSSWC, A24MHSSWC, A23MNSSWC, A24MNSSWC, A23MCMSWC, A24MCMSWC, A23NMCSWC, A24NMCSWC, A23FBMSWC, A24FBMSWC, A24SASSWC Award Year: March 1, 2023 - February 28, 2024; March 1, 2024 - February 28, 2025 Compliance Requirement: Allowable Activities and Costs Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable Costs - (d) If a cost benefits two or more projects or activities in proportions that can be determined without undue effort or cost, the cost must be allocated to the projects based on the proportional benefit. Condition: Costs charged to the federal program were based on an allocation methodology that was not properly updated for the current period. Questioned Costs: $865 Context: During testing of non-payroll costs charged to the program, we received a report from the organization showing the variances between expenses allocated for reimbursement to the program using an incorrect allocation methodology, and the correct amounts that should have been allocated. The variance between the amounts charged and the amounts incurred by the tested program, $10,869 and $10,004, respectively, was $865, which is trivial in nature. However, this is a repeat finding and is deemed to be a material weakness in internal control over compliance. Effect: The system of internal controls was not properly implemented. Cause: Turnover within key positions of the organization resulted in insufficient documentation and/or inadequate implementation of the control procedures. Additionally, issue not discovered until prior year audit discovery in August 2024. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Repeat finding – prior year 2023-002 Recommendation: The Organization should enhance its processes and controls to ensure that cost allocation methodologies utilized to bill federal awards are properly updated each reporting period as deemed necessary to accurately reflect the proportional benefit. Views of Responsible Officials: Management of the Organization concurs with the finding. See Corrective Action Plan.

Item: 2024-002 Assistance Listing Number: 93.940 Programs: HIV Prevention Activities Health Department Based Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Pass-Through Agencies: Arizona Department of Health Services Pass-Through Grantor Identifying Number: 252026/152034 Award Year: August 1, 2023 – April 30, 2024; January 1, 2024 – May 31, 2025; May 1, 2024 – April 30, 2025 Compliance Requirement: Allowable Activities and Costs Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable Costs - (d) If a cost benefits two or more projects or activities in proportions that can be determined without undue effort or cost, the cost must be allocated to the projects based on the proportional benefit. Condition: Costs charged to the federal program were based on an allocation methodology that was not properly updated for the current period. Questioned Costs: $1,835 Context: In a population of over 109 non-payroll costs charged to the program, we conducted a non-statistical sample of 11 non-payroll costs charged to the program. In our sample of 11, we noted that 1 selection was charged to the program based on an allocation methodology that was not properly updated for the current period. The variance between the amounts charged and the amounts supported, $3,260 and $1,425, respectively, was $1,835, which is trivial in nature. However, this is deemed to be a material weakness in internal control over compliance. Effect: The system of internal controls was not properly implemented. Cause: Turnover within key positions of the organization resulted in insufficient documentation and/or inadequate implementation of the control procedures. Additionally, issue not discovered until prior year audit discovery in August 2024. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding Recommendation: The Organization should enhance its processes and controls to ensure that cost allocation methodologies utilized to bill federal awards are properly updated each reporting period as deemed necessary to accurately reflect the proportional benefit. Views of Responsible Officials: Management of the Organization concurs with the finding. See Corrective Action Plan.

2024-001 – Fiscal Policies and Procedures Not Fully Aligned with Uniform Guidance Federal Program: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Family Violence Prevention Services Act, ARP Supplemental and ARP Covid-19 Federal Assistance Listing Number: 93.558 and 93.671 Pass-Through Agency: Texas Health and Human Services Commission Pass-Through Grantor Number: HHS000380000040 Criteria: Non-federal entities are required under 2 CFR §200.303 to establish and maintain effective internal controls over federal awards that provide reasonable assurance of compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the award. Adequate written policies and procedures are a critical component of an effective internal control system. Condition: During our review of the Center’s fiscal policies and procedures, we noted that several key elements required for compliance with 2 CFR Part 200 were either missing or lacked sufficient detail. Specifically, the following areas were underdeveloped:  Conflict of interest policies were not clearly defined or aligned with 2 CFR § 200.112.  Procedures for determining allowable costs under 2 CFR §200.403–§200.405 were not well documented.  Subrecipient monitoring procedures required by 2 CFR §200.331 were not adequately addressed.  Record retention and access policies under 2 CFR §200.333–§200.338 were not clearly outlined. While some general policies were in place, they do not currently meet the level of specificity and comprehensiveness required under the Uniform Guidance. Cause: The Center is in the process of updating its financial policies and procedures to comply with Uniform Guidance requirements. A consultant has been engaged to assist with this process, and updates are expected to be finalized and approved by the Board of Directors in August 2025. Effect: The lack of complete and detailed policies increases the risk of noncompliance with federal requirements, especially in areas such as cost allowability, subrecipient oversight, and recordkeeping. It also creates challenges in ensuring consistent and compliant financial practices across the Center. Questioned Costs: $0 – No noncompliant expenditures were identified; however, the absence of sufficient policies represents a control deficiency. Recommendation: We recommend for the Center to prioritize the completion and formal adoption of revised fiscal policies and procedures, ensuring they fully align with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. These should include detailed written policies on conflict of interest, allowable costs, subrecipient monitoring, and record retention. Finalizing and implementing these policies ahead of the new fiscal year, as planned, will strengthen internal controls and help ensure compliance moving forward. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan: Management agrees with the finding. The Center is currently in the process of updating its fiscal policies and procedures to align with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. The Finance Committee is leading this effort and is reviewing each policy area identified, including conflict of interest, allowable costs, subrecipient monitoring, and record retention. Updated policies and procedures will be finalized and presented for Board approval by August 30, 2025. Once approved, the Center will ensure implementation across all departments and provide internal guidance to promote consistent application. Anticipated Completion Date: August 30, 2025 Responsible Party: Finance Committee, with support from Executive Director, Nichole Henry.

2024-001 – Fiscal Policies and Procedures Not Fully Aligned with Uniform Guidance Federal Program: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Family Violence Prevention Services Act, ARP Supplemental and ARP Covid-19 Federal Assistance Listing Number: 93.558 and 93.671 Pass-Through Agency: Texas Health and Human Services Commission Pass-Through Grantor Number: HHS000380000040 Criteria: Non-federal entities are required under 2 CFR §200.303 to establish and maintain effective internal controls over federal awards that provide reasonable assurance of compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the award. Adequate written policies and procedures are a critical component of an effective internal control system. Condition: During our review of the Center’s fiscal policies and procedures, we noted that several key elements required for compliance with 2 CFR Part 200 were either missing or lacked sufficient detail. Specifically, the following areas were underdeveloped:  Conflict of interest policies were not clearly defined or aligned with 2 CFR § 200.112.  Procedures for determining allowable costs under 2 CFR §200.403–§200.405 were not well documented.  Subrecipient monitoring procedures required by 2 CFR §200.331 were not adequately addressed.  Record retention and access policies under 2 CFR §200.333–§200.338 were not clearly outlined. While some general policies were in place, they do not currently meet the level of specificity and comprehensiveness required under the Uniform Guidance. Cause: The Center is in the process of updating its financial policies and procedures to comply with Uniform Guidance requirements. A consultant has been engaged to assist with this process, and updates are expected to be finalized and approved by the Board of Directors in August 2025. Effect: The lack of complete and detailed policies increases the risk of noncompliance with federal requirements, especially in areas such as cost allowability, subrecipient oversight, and recordkeeping. It also creates challenges in ensuring consistent and compliant financial practices across the Center. Questioned Costs: $0 – No noncompliant expenditures were identified; however, the absence of sufficient policies represents a control deficiency. Recommendation: We recommend for the Center to prioritize the completion and formal adoption of revised fiscal policies and procedures, ensuring they fully align with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. These should include detailed written policies on conflict of interest, allowable costs, subrecipient monitoring, and record retention. Finalizing and implementing these policies ahead of the new fiscal year, as planned, will strengthen internal controls and help ensure compliance moving forward. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan: Management agrees with the finding. The Center is currently in the process of updating its fiscal policies and procedures to align with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. The Finance Committee is leading this effort and is reviewing each policy area identified, including conflict of interest, allowable costs, subrecipient monitoring, and record retention. Updated policies and procedures will be finalized and presented for Board approval by August 30, 2025. Once approved, the Center will ensure implementation across all departments and provide internal guidance to promote consistent application. Anticipated Completion Date: August 30, 2025 Responsible Party: Finance Committee, with support from Executive Director, Nichole Henry.

2024-001 – Fiscal Policies and Procedures Not Fully Aligned with Uniform Guidance Federal Program: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Family Violence Prevention Services Act, ARP Supplemental and ARP Covid-19 Federal Assistance Listing Number: 93.558 and 93.671 Pass-Through Agency: Texas Health and Human Services Commission Pass-Through Grantor Number: HHS000380000040 Criteria: Non-federal entities are required under 2 CFR §200.303 to establish and maintain effective internal controls over federal awards that provide reasonable assurance of compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the award. Adequate written policies and procedures are a critical component of an effective internal control system. Condition: During our review of the Center’s fiscal policies and procedures, we noted that several key elements required for compliance with 2 CFR Part 200 were either missing or lacked sufficient detail. Specifically, the following areas were underdeveloped:  Conflict of interest policies were not clearly defined or aligned with 2 CFR § 200.112.  Procedures for determining allowable costs under 2 CFR §200.403–§200.405 were not well documented.  Subrecipient monitoring procedures required by 2 CFR §200.331 were not adequately addressed.  Record retention and access policies under 2 CFR §200.333–§200.338 were not clearly outlined. While some general policies were in place, they do not currently meet the level of specificity and comprehensiveness required under the Uniform Guidance. Cause: The Center is in the process of updating its financial policies and procedures to comply with Uniform Guidance requirements. A consultant has been engaged to assist with this process, and updates are expected to be finalized and approved by the Board of Directors in August 2025. Effect: The lack of complete and detailed policies increases the risk of noncompliance with federal requirements, especially in areas such as cost allowability, subrecipient oversight, and recordkeeping. It also creates challenges in ensuring consistent and compliant financial practices across the Center. Questioned Costs: $0 – No noncompliant expenditures were identified; however, the absence of sufficient policies represents a control deficiency. Recommendation: We recommend for the Center to prioritize the completion and formal adoption of revised fiscal policies and procedures, ensuring they fully align with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. These should include detailed written policies on conflict of interest, allowable costs, subrecipient monitoring, and record retention. Finalizing and implementing these policies ahead of the new fiscal year, as planned, will strengthen internal controls and help ensure compliance moving forward. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan: Management agrees with the finding. The Center is currently in the process of updating its fiscal policies and procedures to align with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. The Finance Committee is leading this effort and is reviewing each policy area identified, including conflict of interest, allowable costs, subrecipient monitoring, and record retention. Updated policies and procedures will be finalized and presented for Board approval by August 30, 2025. Once approved, the Center will ensure implementation across all departments and provide internal guidance to promote consistent application. Anticipated Completion Date: August 30, 2025 Responsible Party: Finance Committee, with support from Executive Director, Nichole Henry.

2024-001 – Fiscal Policies and Procedures Not Fully Aligned with Uniform Guidance Federal Program: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Family Violence Prevention Services Act, ARP Supplemental and ARP Covid-19 Federal Assistance Listing Number: 93.558 and 93.671 Pass-Through Agency: Texas Health and Human Services Commission Pass-Through Grantor Number: HHS000380000040 Criteria: Non-federal entities are required under 2 CFR §200.303 to establish and maintain effective internal controls over federal awards that provide reasonable assurance of compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the award. Adequate written policies and procedures are a critical component of an effective internal control system. Condition: During our review of the Center’s fiscal policies and procedures, we noted that several key elements required for compliance with 2 CFR Part 200 were either missing or lacked sufficient detail. Specifically, the following areas were underdeveloped:  Conflict of interest policies were not clearly defined or aligned with 2 CFR § 200.112.  Procedures for determining allowable costs under 2 CFR §200.403–§200.405 were not well documented.  Subrecipient monitoring procedures required by 2 CFR §200.331 were not adequately addressed.  Record retention and access policies under 2 CFR §200.333–§200.338 were not clearly outlined. While some general policies were in place, they do not currently meet the level of specificity and comprehensiveness required under the Uniform Guidance. Cause: The Center is in the process of updating its financial policies and procedures to comply with Uniform Guidance requirements. A consultant has been engaged to assist with this process, and updates are expected to be finalized and approved by the Board of Directors in August 2025. Effect: The lack of complete and detailed policies increases the risk of noncompliance with federal requirements, especially in areas such as cost allowability, subrecipient oversight, and recordkeeping. It also creates challenges in ensuring consistent and compliant financial practices across the Center. Questioned Costs: $0 – No noncompliant expenditures were identified; however, the absence of sufficient policies represents a control deficiency. Recommendation: We recommend for the Center to prioritize the completion and formal adoption of revised fiscal policies and procedures, ensuring they fully align with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. These should include detailed written policies on conflict of interest, allowable costs, subrecipient monitoring, and record retention. Finalizing and implementing these policies ahead of the new fiscal year, as planned, will strengthen internal controls and help ensure compliance moving forward. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan: Management agrees with the finding. The Center is currently in the process of updating its fiscal policies and procedures to align with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. The Finance Committee is leading this effort and is reviewing each policy area identified, including conflict of interest, allowable costs, subrecipient monitoring, and record retention. Updated policies and procedures will be finalized and presented for Board approval by August 30, 2025. Once approved, the Center will ensure implementation across all departments and provide internal guidance to promote consistent application. Anticipated Completion Date: August 30, 2025 Responsible Party: Finance Committee, with support from Executive Director, Nichole Henry.

Finding 2024-007 – Allowable Costs (Significant Deficiency and Non-compliance)(Repeat finding) Information on the Federal Program: U.S. Department of Justice, Assistance Listing No.16.575 Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) Criteria: 2 CFR 200.405 establishes requirements for costs allocated to a grant award. These requirements include that costs must be approximated using a reasonable method. Condition/Context: We selected 50 disbursements for testing. Of those 50, 25 were for payroll and 25 were non-payroll disbursements. Of the 25 non-payroll, there was 1 instance in which the cost allocated was not properly documented or supported by a reasonable method. Cause: Expense allocated to the VOCA grant was not properly supported. Effect: The Organization did not adequately document allocation methods required by allowable cost compliance requirements. Questioned costs: $216 Recommendation: We recommend the Organization strengthen its policies and procedures surrounding the disbursement process to ensure the Organization is in compliance with all required documentation and disclosure requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. See Management’s View and Corrective Action Plan included at the end of the report.

Item: 2024-001 Assistance Listing Number: 93.914 Program: HIV Emergency Relief Project Grants Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Pass-Through Agencies: Maricopa County Department of Public Health Services Pass-Through Grantor Identifying Number: A23MHSSWC, A24MHSSWC, A23MNSSWC, A24MNSSWC, A23MCMSWC, A24MCMSWC, A23NMCSWC, A24NMCSWC, A23FBMSWC, A24FBMSWC, A24SASSWC Award Year: March 1, 2023 - February 28, 2024; March 1, 2024 - February 28, 2025 Compliance Requirement: Allowable Activities and Costs Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable Costs - (d) If a cost benefits two or more projects or activities in proportions that can be determined without undue effort or cost, the cost must be allocated to the projects based on the proportional benefit. Condition: Costs charged to the federal program were based on an allocation methodology that was not properly updated for the current period. Questioned Costs: $865 Context: During testing of non-payroll costs charged to the program, we received a report from the organization showing the variances between expenses allocated for reimbursement to the program using an incorrect allocation methodology, and the correct amounts that should have been allocated. The variance between the amounts charged and the amounts incurred by the tested program, $10,869 and $10,004, respectively, was $865, which is trivial in nature. However, this is a repeat finding and is deemed to be a material weakness in internal control over compliance. Effect: The system of internal controls was not properly implemented. Cause: Turnover within key positions of the organization resulted in insufficient documentation and/or inadequate implementation of the control procedures. Additionally, issue not discovered until prior year audit discovery in August 2024. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Repeat finding – prior year 2023-002 Recommendation: The Organization should enhance its processes and controls to ensure that cost allocation methodologies utilized to bill federal awards are properly updated each reporting period as deemed necessary to accurately reflect the proportional benefit. Views of Responsible Officials: Management of the Organization concurs with the finding. See Corrective Action Plan.

Item: 2024-002 Assistance Listing Number: 93.940 Programs: HIV Prevention Activities Health Department Based Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Pass-Through Agencies: Arizona Department of Health Services Pass-Through Grantor Identifying Number: 252026/152034 Award Year: August 1, 2023 – April 30, 2024; January 1, 2024 – May 31, 2025; May 1, 2024 – April 30, 2025 Compliance Requirement: Allowable Activities and Costs Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable Costs - (d) If a cost benefits two or more projects or activities in proportions that can be determined without undue effort or cost, the cost must be allocated to the projects based on the proportional benefit. Condition: Costs charged to the federal program were based on an allocation methodology that was not properly updated for the current period. Questioned Costs: $1,835 Context: In a population of over 109 non-payroll costs charged to the program, we conducted a non-statistical sample of 11 non-payroll costs charged to the program. In our sample of 11, we noted that 1 selection was charged to the program based on an allocation methodology that was not properly updated for the current period. The variance between the amounts charged and the amounts supported, $3,260 and $1,425, respectively, was $1,835, which is trivial in nature. However, this is deemed to be a material weakness in internal control over compliance. Effect: The system of internal controls was not properly implemented. Cause: Turnover within key positions of the organization resulted in insufficient documentation and/or inadequate implementation of the control procedures. Additionally, issue not discovered until prior year audit discovery in August 2024. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding Recommendation: The Organization should enhance its processes and controls to ensure that cost allocation methodologies utilized to bill federal awards are properly updated each reporting period as deemed necessary to accurately reflect the proportional benefit. Views of Responsible Officials: Management of the Organization concurs with the finding. See Corrective Action Plan.

2024-001 – Fiscal Policies and Procedures Not Fully Aligned with Uniform Guidance Federal Program: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Family Violence Prevention Services Act, ARP Supplemental and ARP Covid-19 Federal Assistance Listing Number: 93.558 and 93.671 Pass-Through Agency: Texas Health and Human Services Commission Pass-Through Grantor Number: HHS000380000040 Criteria: Non-federal entities are required under 2 CFR §200.303 to establish and maintain effective internal controls over federal awards that provide reasonable assurance of compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the award. Adequate written policies and procedures are a critical component of an effective internal control system. Condition: During our review of the Center’s fiscal policies and procedures, we noted that several key elements required for compliance with 2 CFR Part 200 were either missing or lacked sufficient detail. Specifically, the following areas were underdeveloped:  Conflict of interest policies were not clearly defined or aligned with 2 CFR § 200.112.  Procedures for determining allowable costs under 2 CFR §200.403–§200.405 were not well documented.  Subrecipient monitoring procedures required by 2 CFR §200.331 were not adequately addressed.  Record retention and access policies under 2 CFR §200.333–§200.338 were not clearly outlined. While some general policies were in place, they do not currently meet the level of specificity and comprehensiveness required under the Uniform Guidance. Cause: The Center is in the process of updating its financial policies and procedures to comply with Uniform Guidance requirements. A consultant has been engaged to assist with this process, and updates are expected to be finalized and approved by the Board of Directors in August 2025. Effect: The lack of complete and detailed policies increases the risk of noncompliance with federal requirements, especially in areas such as cost allowability, subrecipient oversight, and recordkeeping. It also creates challenges in ensuring consistent and compliant financial practices across the Center. Questioned Costs: $0 – No noncompliant expenditures were identified; however, the absence of sufficient policies represents a control deficiency. Recommendation: We recommend for the Center to prioritize the completion and formal adoption of revised fiscal policies and procedures, ensuring they fully align with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. These should include detailed written policies on conflict of interest, allowable costs, subrecipient monitoring, and record retention. Finalizing and implementing these policies ahead of the new fiscal year, as planned, will strengthen internal controls and help ensure compliance moving forward. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan: Management agrees with the finding. The Center is currently in the process of updating its fiscal policies and procedures to align with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. The Finance Committee is leading this effort and is reviewing each policy area identified, including conflict of interest, allowable costs, subrecipient monitoring, and record retention. Updated policies and procedures will be finalized and presented for Board approval by August 30, 2025. Once approved, the Center will ensure implementation across all departments and provide internal guidance to promote consistent application. Anticipated Completion Date: August 30, 2025 Responsible Party: Finance Committee, with support from Executive Director, Nichole Henry.

2024-001 – Fiscal Policies and Procedures Not Fully Aligned with Uniform Guidance Federal Program: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Family Violence Prevention Services Act, ARP Supplemental and ARP Covid-19 Federal Assistance Listing Number: 93.558 and 93.671 Pass-Through Agency: Texas Health and Human Services Commission Pass-Through Grantor Number: HHS000380000040 Criteria: Non-federal entities are required under 2 CFR §200.303 to establish and maintain effective internal controls over federal awards that provide reasonable assurance of compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the award. Adequate written policies and procedures are a critical component of an effective internal control system. Condition: During our review of the Center’s fiscal policies and procedures, we noted that several key elements required for compliance with 2 CFR Part 200 were either missing or lacked sufficient detail. Specifically, the following areas were underdeveloped:  Conflict of interest policies were not clearly defined or aligned with 2 CFR § 200.112.  Procedures for determining allowable costs under 2 CFR §200.403–§200.405 were not well documented.  Subrecipient monitoring procedures required by 2 CFR §200.331 were not adequately addressed.  Record retention and access policies under 2 CFR §200.333–§200.338 were not clearly outlined. While some general policies were in place, they do not currently meet the level of specificity and comprehensiveness required under the Uniform Guidance. Cause: The Center is in the process of updating its financial policies and procedures to comply with Uniform Guidance requirements. A consultant has been engaged to assist with this process, and updates are expected to be finalized and approved by the Board of Directors in August 2025. Effect: The lack of complete and detailed policies increases the risk of noncompliance with federal requirements, especially in areas such as cost allowability, subrecipient oversight, and recordkeeping. It also creates challenges in ensuring consistent and compliant financial practices across the Center. Questioned Costs: $0 – No noncompliant expenditures were identified; however, the absence of sufficient policies represents a control deficiency. Recommendation: We recommend for the Center to prioritize the completion and formal adoption of revised fiscal policies and procedures, ensuring they fully align with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. These should include detailed written policies on conflict of interest, allowable costs, subrecipient monitoring, and record retention. Finalizing and implementing these policies ahead of the new fiscal year, as planned, will strengthen internal controls and help ensure compliance moving forward. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan: Management agrees with the finding. The Center is currently in the process of updating its fiscal policies and procedures to align with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. The Finance Committee is leading this effort and is reviewing each policy area identified, including conflict of interest, allowable costs, subrecipient monitoring, and record retention. Updated policies and procedures will be finalized and presented for Board approval by August 30, 2025. Once approved, the Center will ensure implementation across all departments and provide internal guidance to promote consistent application. Anticipated Completion Date: August 30, 2025 Responsible Party: Finance Committee, with support from Executive Director, Nichole Henry.

2024-001 – Fiscal Policies and Procedures Not Fully Aligned with Uniform Guidance Federal Program: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Family Violence Prevention Services Act, ARP Supplemental and ARP Covid-19 Federal Assistance Listing Number: 93.558 and 93.671 Pass-Through Agency: Texas Health and Human Services Commission Pass-Through Grantor Number: HHS000380000040 Criteria: Non-federal entities are required under 2 CFR §200.303 to establish and maintain effective internal controls over federal awards that provide reasonable assurance of compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the award. Adequate written policies and procedures are a critical component of an effective internal control system. Condition: During our review of the Center’s fiscal policies and procedures, we noted that several key elements required for compliance with 2 CFR Part 200 were either missing or lacked sufficient detail. Specifically, the following areas were underdeveloped:  Conflict of interest policies were not clearly defined or aligned with 2 CFR § 200.112.  Procedures for determining allowable costs under 2 CFR §200.403–§200.405 were not well documented.  Subrecipient monitoring procedures required by 2 CFR §200.331 were not adequately addressed.  Record retention and access policies under 2 CFR §200.333–§200.338 were not clearly outlined. While some general policies were in place, they do not currently meet the level of specificity and comprehensiveness required under the Uniform Guidance. Cause: The Center is in the process of updating its financial policies and procedures to comply with Uniform Guidance requirements. A consultant has been engaged to assist with this process, and updates are expected to be finalized and approved by the Board of Directors in August 2025. Effect: The lack of complete and detailed policies increases the risk of noncompliance with federal requirements, especially in areas such as cost allowability, subrecipient oversight, and recordkeeping. It also creates challenges in ensuring consistent and compliant financial practices across the Center. Questioned Costs: $0 – No noncompliant expenditures were identified; however, the absence of sufficient policies represents a control deficiency. Recommendation: We recommend for the Center to prioritize the completion and formal adoption of revised fiscal policies and procedures, ensuring they fully align with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. These should include detailed written policies on conflict of interest, allowable costs, subrecipient monitoring, and record retention. Finalizing and implementing these policies ahead of the new fiscal year, as planned, will strengthen internal controls and help ensure compliance moving forward. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan: Management agrees with the finding. The Center is currently in the process of updating its fiscal policies and procedures to align with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. The Finance Committee is leading this effort and is reviewing each policy area identified, including conflict of interest, allowable costs, subrecipient monitoring, and record retention. Updated policies and procedures will be finalized and presented for Board approval by August 30, 2025. Once approved, the Center will ensure implementation across all departments and provide internal guidance to promote consistent application. Anticipated Completion Date: August 30, 2025 Responsible Party: Finance Committee, with support from Executive Director, Nichole Henry.

2024-001 – Fiscal Policies and Procedures Not Fully Aligned with Uniform Guidance Federal Program: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Family Violence Prevention Services Act, ARP Supplemental and ARP Covid-19 Federal Assistance Listing Number: 93.558 and 93.671 Pass-Through Agency: Texas Health and Human Services Commission Pass-Through Grantor Number: HHS000380000040 Criteria: Non-federal entities are required under 2 CFR §200.303 to establish and maintain effective internal controls over federal awards that provide reasonable assurance of compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the award. Adequate written policies and procedures are a critical component of an effective internal control system. Condition: During our review of the Center’s fiscal policies and procedures, we noted that several key elements required for compliance with 2 CFR Part 200 were either missing or lacked sufficient detail. Specifically, the following areas were underdeveloped:  Conflict of interest policies were not clearly defined or aligned with 2 CFR § 200.112.  Procedures for determining allowable costs under 2 CFR §200.403–§200.405 were not well documented.  Subrecipient monitoring procedures required by 2 CFR §200.331 were not adequately addressed.  Record retention and access policies under 2 CFR §200.333–§200.338 were not clearly outlined. While some general policies were in place, they do not currently meet the level of specificity and comprehensiveness required under the Uniform Guidance. Cause: The Center is in the process of updating its financial policies and procedures to comply with Uniform Guidance requirements. A consultant has been engaged to assist with this process, and updates are expected to be finalized and approved by the Board of Directors in August 2025. Effect: The lack of complete and detailed policies increases the risk of noncompliance with federal requirements, especially in areas such as cost allowability, subrecipient oversight, and recordkeeping. It also creates challenges in ensuring consistent and compliant financial practices across the Center. Questioned Costs: $0 – No noncompliant expenditures were identified; however, the absence of sufficient policies represents a control deficiency. Recommendation: We recommend for the Center to prioritize the completion and formal adoption of revised fiscal policies and procedures, ensuring they fully align with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. These should include detailed written policies on conflict of interest, allowable costs, subrecipient monitoring, and record retention. Finalizing and implementing these policies ahead of the new fiscal year, as planned, will strengthen internal controls and help ensure compliance moving forward. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan: Management agrees with the finding. The Center is currently in the process of updating its fiscal policies and procedures to align with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. The Finance Committee is leading this effort and is reviewing each policy area identified, including conflict of interest, allowable costs, subrecipient monitoring, and record retention. Updated policies and procedures will be finalized and presented for Board approval by August 30, 2025. Once approved, the Center will ensure implementation across all departments and provide internal guidance to promote consistent application. Anticipated Completion Date: August 30, 2025 Responsible Party: Finance Committee, with support from Executive Director, Nichole Henry.

2024-001: Activities Allowed or Unallowed & Allowable Costs/Cost Principles - Material Weakness in Internal Control and Material Noncompliance Repeat of Prior Audit Finding 2023-001 Federal Program: Trans-National Crime Federal Agency: U.S. Department of State - Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs Federal Assistance Listing Number: 19.705 Federal Award Year: December 31, 2024 Criteria: 2 CFR section 200.303(a) of the Uniform Guidance requires all non-Federal entities to establish and maintain effective 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. In addition, 2 CFR sections 200.405 and 200.403(g) require federal awards be expended only for allowable activities and be adequately documented, respectively. Condition/Context: The Corporation was unable to provide a signed contract or reconciliation to evidence allowability of the expenditures or documentation of review and approval for the following: • For 5 out of 40 selections, no evidence of approval of signed contract could be provided (control). • For 6 out of 40 selections, no evidence of signed contract or reconciliation support could be provided (compliance). This was not a statistically valid sample. Questioned Costs: Questioned costs were approximately $19,428. Cause: The Corporation did not retain/could not retrieve the signed contract or due to poor document retention. Effect: The Corporation has not complied with the specific requirements for activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles as described in the Uniform Guidance. Unallowable costs may have been charged to the federal program. Recommendation: We recommend that the Corporation review its process and implement procedures that would allow management to properly maintain all required documentation on its federal expenditures. Views of Responsible Officials: The Corporation has sustained and built upon the improvements achieved in 2023, maintaining a reduced occurrence of the findings noted in prior audits. The HR solution, Rippling, implemented in 2024, continues to be an integral part of ensuring that all agreements and rate changes are accurately tracked and fully documented. This system has strengthened the Corporation’s document retention practices and supported ongoing compliance with federal regulations. The rollout of Rippling’s timesheet module was completed for all of the Corporation’s South American entities, Central America, UK, France, Gabon and Senegal. The Corporation continued roll out into 2025 and completed that for all remaining entities including Thailand, Malaysia, UAE, Saudia Arabia, Central and South Africa.

Finding 2024-001 - Activities Allowed or Unallowed & Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (Internal Control over Compliance/Compliance) ALN No.: 93.696 - Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic Expansion Grants Award Year: January 1, 2024 – December 31, 2024 Federal Agency: United States Department of Health and Human Services Pass Through Entity: Not applicable Criteria: 2 CFR Part 200.303(a) of the Uniform Guidance requires all non-Federal entities to establish and maintain effective 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. In addition, 2 CFR section 200.405 requires federal awards be expended only for allowable activities. Condition/Context: South Shore made a clerical error in calculating allocated payroll amount claimed for one selection tested out of 60 selections leading to an error of $108. The sampling method was nonstatistical sampling. Cause: There was no proper review and oversight over the individual preparing the monthly claims for reimbursement. Effect: South Shore has not complied with the specific requirements for activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles as described in the Uniform Guidance. Unallowable costs were charged to the federal program. Questioned Costs: None. Recommendation: South Shore should enhance its internal control processes related to preparation and review of the monthly claim for reimbursement.

FINDING 2024-003 Subject: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - Subrecipient Monitoring Federal Agency: Department of the Treasury Federal Program: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listings Number: 21.027 Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): SLFRP1096 Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Audit Finding: Material Weakness INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 CITY OF ANDERSON SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Condition and Context Subrecipients associated with the City's Non-profit, Affordable Housing, and Homeless Initiatives activities funded by the COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds were required to submit reports on program activities either quarterly or monthly. The City did not have adequate internal controls in place designed to ensure that these reports were reviewed. Responsibility for reviewing these reports rested primarily with one employee. For two of three subrecipients tested, we were not able to determine that there was a second employee involved that would ensure that the reports submitted by the subrecipients were reviewed by the City. The lack of internal controls was 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 200.332 states: "All pass-through entities must: (a) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and include the following information at the time of the subaward and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward notification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. Required information includes: (1) Federal award identification. (i) Subrecipient name (which must match the name associated with its unique entity identifier); (ii) Subrecipient's unique entity identifier; (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date (see the definition of Federal award date in § 200.1 of this part) of award to the recipient by the Federal agency; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 20 CITY OF ANDERSON SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (vi) Subaward Budget Period Start and End Date; (vii) Amount of Federal Funds Obligated by this action by the pass-through entity to the subrecipient; (viii) Total Amount of Federal Funds Obligated to the subrecipient by the passthrough entity including the current financial obligation; (ix) Total Amount of the Federal Award committed to the subrecipient by the passthrough entity; (x) Federal award project description, as required to be responsive to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA); (xi) Name of Federal awarding agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the Pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings number and Title; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at time of disbursement; (xiii) Identification of whether the award is R&D; and (xiv) Indirect cost rate for the Federal award (including if the de minimis rate is charged) per § 200.414. (2) All requirements imposed by the pass-through entity on the subrecipient so that the Federal award is used in accordance with Federal statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of the Federal award; (3) Any additional requirements that the pass-through entity imposes on the subrecipient in order for the pass-through entity to meet its own responsibility to the Federal awarding agency including identification of any required financial and performance reports. (4) (i) An approved federally recognized indirect cost rate negotiated between the subrecipient and the Federal Government. If no approved rate exists, the passthrough entity must determine the appropriate rate in collaboration with the subrecipient, which is either: (A) The negotiated indirect cost rate between the pass-through entity and the subrecipient; which can be based on a prior negotiated rate between a different PTE and the same subrecipient. If basing the rate on a previously negotiated rate, the pass through entity is not required to collect information justifying this rate, but may elect to do so; (B) The de minimis indirect cost rate. (ii) The pass-through entity must not require use of a de minimis indirect cost rate if the subrecipient has a Federally approved rate. Subrecipients can elect to use the cost allocation method to account for indirect costs in accordance with § 200.405(d). INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 CITY OF ANDERSON SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (5) A requirement that the subrecipient permit the pass-through entity and auditors to have access to the subrecipient's records and financial statements as necessary for the pass-through entity to meet the requirements of this part; and (6) Appropriate terms and conditions concerning closeout of the subaward. . . . (b) Evaluate each subrecipient's risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which may include consideration of such factors as: (1) The subrecipient's prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits including whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F of this part, and the extent to which the same or similar subaward has been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of Federal awarding agency monitoring (e.g., if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency). (c) Consider imposing specific subaward conditions upon a subrecipient if appropriate as described in § 200.208. (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. Pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: (1) Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. (2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. (3) Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 CITY OF ANDERSON SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (4) The pass-through entity is responsible for resolving audit findings specifically related to the subaward and not responsible for resolving crosscutting findings. If a subrecipient has a current Single Audit report posted in the Federal Audit Clearinghouse and has not otherwise been excluded from receipt of Federal funding (e.g., has been debarred or suspended), the pass-through entity may rely on the subrecipient's cognizant audit agency or cognizant oversight agency to perform audit follow-up and make management decisions related to cross-cutting findings in accordance with section § 200.513(a)(3)(vii). Such reliance does not eliminate the responsibility of the pass-through entity to issue subawards that conform to agency and award-specific requirements, to manage risk through ongoing subaward monitoring, and to monitor the status of the findings that are specifically related to the subaward. (e) Depending upon the pass-through entity's assessment of risk posed by the subrecipient (as described in paragraph (b) of this section), the following monitoring tools may be useful for the pass-through entity to ensure proper accountability and compliance with program requirements and achievement of performance goals: (1) Providing subrecipients with training and technical assistance on program related matters; and (2) Performing on-site reviews of the subrecipient's program operations. (3) Arranging for agreed-upon-procedures engagements as described in § 200.425. (f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by Subpart F of this part when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in § 200.501. (g) Consider whether the results of the subrecipient's audits, on-site reviews, or other monitoring indicate conditions that necessitate adjustments to the pass-through entity's own records. (h) Consider taking enforcement action against noncompliant subrecipients as described in § 200.339 of this part and in program regulations." Cause A system of internal controls to include oversite and review of the quarterly or monthly reports prepared by the subrecipients was not in place. One individual was primarily responsible for reviewing the subrecipient reports. Effect Not having procedures in place for oversite and review of the monitoring reports could lead to noncompliance with the requirements for subrecipient monitoring. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the City. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 CITY OF ANDERSON SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the City establish a proper system of internal controls to include oversite and review to ensure that the subrecipient report reviews are reviewed/approved by a second party. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.

CDBG AL# 14.218 Allowable Costs Condition: Allegheny County Economic Development (ACED) charges CDBG program accounts for the salary and related fringe benefits of numerous employees, including employees that do not work full time on the CDBG program. Hours for each employee are tracked by the program(s) the employee works on each day. ACED needs to calculate the salary and benefit amounts for time not related to CDBG, charge the proper non-CDBG program, and reduce the CDBG program expense, based on these hours. ACED indicated these cross-charges are done on a quarterly basis. We tested salary and benefit cross-charges for one quarter of calendar year 2024 and recalculated the non-CDBG salary and benefit amounts using ACED time reports, salary information, and JDE fringe benefit reports. Based on our calculation, we noted $249,390 in salaries and fringe benefits were charged to the CDBG program for time not worked on CDBG. Of this amount, ACED did not record the cross charges or reduce program expenses by $127,289. Although ACED provided supporting documentation that CDBG expenses were reduced by the remaining $122,101, these entries were not recorded in JDE until 2025 (see also finding 2024-011). Criteria: Allowable costs include those that are incurred specifically for the Federal award (2 CFR Part 200 Subpart E -Cost Principles (2 CFR 200.405.a.1). Cause: ACED has a process to cross-charge time not worked on CDBG to the proper program, but due to department turnover, these cross-charges were not properly completed, or were not completed timely. This is a repeat finding from the prior year. Effect: The County was not in compliance with the terms of the federal grant program. Questioned Costs: $127,289 Recommendation: ACED should establish procedures to ensure that all cross-charges are properly calculated and completed in a timely manner. Management Response: Management agrees with the finding, see attached Corrective Action Plan.

CDBG AL# 14.218 Allowable Costs Condition: Throughout our testing, we found expenditures totaling $150,550 that were not recorded in the proper accounting period. One of the 41 CDBG non-payroll expenditures tested for 2024, in the amount of $16,079, was a 2023 expenditure that was not properly accrued in 2023. One expenditure in the amount of $12,370 was included in the CDBG-CV PR07 report in 2024, but due to a miscommunication, it was not recorded in JDE until 2025. Cross-charges totaling $122,101 to reduce non-CDBG salary and fringe benefits costs recorded as CDBG expenditures in the fourth quarter of 2024 were not recorded in JDE until 2025. Criteria: Allowable costs include those that are incurred specifically for the Federal award (2 CFR Part 200 Subpart E -Cost Principles (2 CFR 200.405.a.1). Cause: ACED has a process to accrue expenditures, but due to department turnover, accruals were not properly completed for these transactions. Effect: The County was not in compliance with the terms of the federal grant program. Questioned Costs: None. Recommendation: ACED should implement procedures to ensure that expenditures and crosscharges are properly accrued for in the correct period. Management Response: Management agrees with the finding, see attached Corrective Action Plan.

Criteria – According to 2 CFR § 200.403, 2 CFR § 200.405, and 2 CFR § 200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be allowable, reasonable, and allocable. Specifically, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the federal award, must conform to limitations and exclusions set forth in the cost principles, must be consistent with policies that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities, and costs must comply with the terms and conditions of the federal award. Federal funds must also only be used for expenditures incurred during the award period. Condition – During our review of expenditures charged to the Crime Victim Assistance (VOCA) grant, we noted that management charged an expense prior to the completion of the project. The expense was allowable under the grant, but the timing of the charge did not align with when the activity occurred. Cause – The premature charge occurred due to management attempting to use the remaining grant funds for that period before they expired. Questioned Cost Amount – Based on deviations noted in our testwork the projected likely questioned costs resulting in noncompliance are as follows: Crime Victim Assistance (VOCA), 16.575: $74,661. Effect – The Organization was not in compliance with the requirements listed above. Recommendation – We recommend the Organization review and reinforce policies regarding timing of cost obligations and expenditures and ensure expenses are recorded in alignment with when the related activity occurs. View of Responsible Officials – Management agrees with the finding. Corrective Action Plan – See attached corrective action plan from management.

Criteria – According to 2 CFR § 200.403, 2 CFR § 200.405, and 2 CFR § 200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be allowable, reasonable, and allocable. Specifically, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the federal award, must conform to limitations and exclusions set forth in the cost principles, must be consistent with policies that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities, and costs must comply with the terms and conditions of the federal award. Federal funds must also only be used for expenditures incurred during the award period. Condition – During our review of expenditures charged to the Crime Victim Assistance (VOCA) grant, we noted that management charged an expense prior to the completion of the project. The expense was allowable under the grant, but the timing of the charge did not align with when the activity occurred. Cause – The premature charge occurred due to management attempting to use the remaining grant funds for that period before they expired. Questioned Cost Amount – Based on deviations noted in our testwork the projected likely questioned costs resulting in noncompliance are as follows: Crime Victim Assistance (VOCA), 16.575: $74,661. Effect – The Organization was not in compliance with the requirements listed above. Recommendation – We recommend the Organization review and reinforce policies regarding timing of cost obligations and expenditures and ensure expenses are recorded in alignment with when the related activity occurs. View of Responsible Officials – Management agrees with the finding. Corrective Action Plan – See attached corrective action plan from management.

Criteria – According to 2 CFR § 200.403, 2 CFR § 200.405, and 2 CFR § 200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be allowable, reasonable, and allocable. Specifically, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the federal award, must conform to limitations and exclusions set forth in the cost principles, must be consistent with policies that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities, and costs must comply with the terms and conditions of the federal award. Federal funds must also only be used for expenditures incurred during the award period. Condition – During our review of expenditures charged to the Crime Victim Assistance (VOCA) grant, we noted that management charged an expense prior to the completion of the project. The expense was allowable under the grant, but the timing of the charge did not align with when the activity occurred. Cause – The premature charge occurred due to management attempting to use the remaining grant funds for that period before they expired. Questioned Cost Amount – Based on deviations noted in our testwork the projected likely questioned costs resulting in noncompliance are as follows: Crime Victim Assistance (VOCA), 16.575: $74,661. Effect – The Organization was not in compliance with the requirements listed above. Recommendation – We recommend the Organization review and reinforce policies regarding timing of cost obligations and expenditures and ensure expenses are recorded in alignment with when the related activity occurs. View of Responsible Officials – Management agrees with the finding. Corrective Action Plan – See attached corrective action plan from management.

Criteria – According to 2 CFR § 200.403, 2 CFR § 200.405, and 2 CFR § 200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be allowable, reasonable, and allocable. Specifically, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the federal award, must conform to limitations and exclusions set forth in the cost principles, must be consistent with policies that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities, and costs must comply with the terms and conditions of the federal award. Federal funds must also only be used for expenditures incurred during the award period. Condition – During our review of expenditures charged to the Crime Victim Assistance (VOCA) grant, we noted that management charged an expense prior to the completion of the project. The expense was allowable under the grant, but the timing of the charge did not align with when the activity occurred. Cause – The premature charge occurred due to management attempting to use the remaining grant funds for that period before they expired. Questioned Cost Amount – Based on deviations noted in our testwork the projected likely questioned costs resulting in noncompliance are as follows: Crime Victim Assistance (VOCA), 16.575: $74,661. Effect – The Organization was not in compliance with the requirements listed above. Recommendation – We recommend the Organization review and reinforce policies regarding timing of cost obligations and expenditures and ensure expenses are recorded in alignment with when the related activity occurs. View of Responsible Officials – Management agrees with the finding. Corrective Action Plan – See attached corrective action plan from management.

Criteria – According to 2 CFR § 200.403, 2 CFR § 200.405, and 2 CFR § 200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be allowable, reasonable, and allocable. Specifically, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the federal award, must conform to limitations and exclusions set forth in the cost principles, must be consistent with policies that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities, and costs must comply with the terms and conditions of the federal award. Federal funds must also only be used for expenditures incurred during the award period. Condition – During our review of expenditures charged to the Crime Victim Assistance (VOCA) grant, we noted that management charged an expense prior to the completion of the project. The expense was allowable under the grant, but the timing of the charge did not align with when the activity occurred. Cause – The premature charge occurred due to management attempting to use the remaining grant funds for that period before they expired. Questioned Cost Amount – Based on deviations noted in our testwork the projected likely questioned costs resulting in noncompliance are as follows: Crime Victim Assistance (VOCA), 16.575: $74,661. Effect – The Organization was not in compliance with the requirements listed above. Recommendation – We recommend the Organization review and reinforce policies regarding timing of cost obligations and expenditures and ensure expenses are recorded in alignment with when the related activity occurs. View of Responsible Officials – Management agrees with the finding. Corrective Action Plan – See attached corrective action plan from management.

2 CFR § 200.405 (a) states, in part, that a cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. Ohio Admin. Code § 5101:9-1-04(C)(3) defines “Social service (SS) administrative costs” as “costs that benefit one or more SS programs. The SS cost pool consists of costs relating to the administration of various SS programs. During our testing of indirect payroll expenditures, we noted that the Belmont County Family and Children First Council Coordinator’s salary and benefits were improperly charged to the social services cost pool. This error resulted in questioned costs of $68,016 against the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Cluster. Failure to charge these costs to the appropriate cost pool resulted in the allocation of costs to a non-benefitting program, which subsequently resulted in improper Federal reimbursement to this non-benefitting program. We recommend the County implement procedures to evaluate expenditures to determine which programs they benefit in order to charge the associated costs to the appropriate indirect cost pool or direct program. We further recommend the County complete the necessary adjustment in CFIS Web to adjust the aforementioned costs, and any similar ones, to the benefitting program.

Finding 2024-001 - Significant Deficiency - Direct Cost Allocation Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.405(d), if a cost benefits two or more projects or activities in proportions that can be determined without undue effort or cost, the cost must be allocated to the projects based on the proportional benefit. Condition: The Organization improperly allocated certain direct costs to its grant awards during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024. Cause: The Organizations allocation calculation for certain direct costs did not properly allocate these costs across the projects that were benefitted. Effect: Expenses charged to projects were under-allocated in comparison to the actual time and effort spent on those projects. Recommendation: We recommend that management review their current allocation methods to ensure the expense attibutable to each project is being calculated and recorded correctly.

Identification of the federal program: Federal grantor: United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Assistance Listing No.: 93.048 Program name: Special Programs for the Aging, Title IV, and Title II, Discretionary Projects Criteria or specific requirement (including statutory, regulatory, or other citation): Under 2 CFR 200.403 costs must be allowable; 2 CFR 200.405 allocable; and indirect costs must follow 2 CFR 200.414 and Appendix IV to Part 200 (nonprofit rate determination). Entities without a current negotiated rate may elect the 10% de minimis rate (2 CFR 200.414(f)). HHS adopts these requirements at 45 CFR Part 75. Condition: The organization applied and included an expired provisional indirect cost rate in its HHS grant application and budgets. HHS approved the application and budgets; however, the rate in use was not current and the Organization had no active negotiated indirect cost rate agreement (NICRA). Cause: Lapse in monitoring and renewing the negotiated indirect cost rate. Effect or potential effect: Risk of noncompliance with cost principles and potential unallowable indirect cost recoveries if the expired rate differs from an approved current rate. Questioned costs: Undetermined. The variance between the expired rate and an allowable rate was not calculated. Recommendation: Either (1) obtain an updated NICRA from the cognizant agency (HHS) and apply it prospectively and, if required, retroactively. Implement controls to track rate expirations and require documented verification of the current rate before budget submissions and draw requests. Views of responsible officials: Management occurs with the recommendation. See Management’s Corrective Action Plan.