The City of New YorkLocal Government

New York City Administration for Children’s Services (“ACS”) Finding #: 2025-001 Funding Year(s): 10/1/2023 - 9/30/2025 CCDF Cluster: Child Care and Development Block Grant (ALN 93.575) Contract Numbers: 23-OCFS-LCM-12-R4, 24-OCFS-LCM-16-R4 Pass-Through Agency: New York State Office of Children and Family Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Type of Finding: Eligibility - Material Noncompliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: As stipulated by the 45 CFR Part 98 Subpart C, to be eligible for services under the Child Care and Development Block Grant (“CCDBG”), a child shall (1) be under the age of thirteen (13) years of age or be under the age of nineteen (19) and physically or mentally incapable of caring for himself or herself; (2) Reside with a family whose income does not exceed 85 percent of the State's median income (SMI) and whose family assets do not exceed $1,000,000; and (3) reside with a parent or parents who are working or attending a job training or educational program; or receive, or need to receive, protective services. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of federal awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” (the “Green Book”) 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”) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: We selected a non-statistical sample of forty (40) individuals who received services under CCDBG during fiscal year 2025. For three (3) of the individuals tested, ACS paid for hours of care that exceeded the number of hours of care that the individual was eligible to receive based on the authorized hours determined during the eligibility approval process. Total CCDBG benefits charged to the grant were $1,189,844,345 and total CCDBG benefits subjected to testing were $51,020. Cause/Effect: While ACS has a process in place to determine child eligibility, it did not consistently perform a comprehensive review to ensure that provider attendance submissions were reconciled to the authorized hours established during the eligibility determination process. As a result, ACS requested reimbursement for services calculated using attendance hours that exceeded authorized hours certain children were eligible to receive. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $365. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2024-003, included on pages 225 and 226 of the Fiscal 2024 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend that ACS strengthen internal controls to ensure that provider attendance submissions are consistently reconciled to the authorized hours established during the eligibility determination process. This should include implementing a documented review procedure to verify that reimbursements are requested based on authorized hours of care, in accordance with eligibility requirements under 45 CFR Part 98 Subpart C.

New York City Housing Preservation & Development (“HPD”) Finding #: 2025-002 Funding Year(s): 7/1/2024 – 6/30/2025 Housing Voucher Cluster: Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (ALN 14.871) Contract Numbers: N/A Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Type of Finding: Eligibility, Reporting, and Special Tests and Provisions (Utility Allowance Schedule) - Material Noncompliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: As stipulated by 24 CFR Section 982.201, prior to providing housing assistance payments (HAP) to participants, HPD must verify the eligibility of applicants based on their family income and composition. Per 24 CFR Section 982.516, HPD must also reexamine family income and composition for each tenant at least once every 12 months to verify continued eligibility and adjust the HAP amount, as necessary. Further, the HUD 50058 form, titled Family Report is used by Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) to collect information on families receiving housing assistance through the program and submission is required before the effective date of the annual recertification. In addition, as stipulated by 24 CFR Section 982.517, HPD must maintain an up-to-date utility allowance schedule and establish procedures to properly apply the updated utility allowances to each tenant’s HAP calculations as part of the annual reexamination process. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of Federal Awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” (the “Green Book”) 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”) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: To assess eligibility, HPD’s policy is to conduct annual recertifications of family income and composition. As part of that process, HPD sends a recertification package to the head of household, which contains documentation that the tenant must complete for verification purposes. HPD then analyzes and verifies all information included in the recertification package to determine if the tenant is eligible to continue to receive HAPs and adjust the tenant rent and HAP amounts, including the utility allowance, as necessary for the following 12-month period. The HUD 50058 form is submitted upon completion of the annual recertification to update family income, composition and rent calculations. We selected a non-statistical sample of forty (40) tenants who received HAPs under the Housing Voucher Cluster during fiscal year 2025. For sixteen (16) of the tenants tested, HPD was not able to provide documentation to support that an eligibility recertification for the tenant, including a review of the utility allowance and HAP calculation, was performed within the previous 12 months, as required. For those sixteen (16) tenants, HPD did not submit the HUD 50058 form by the effective date of the annual recertification as required.   Cause/Effect: While HPD has a process in place to assess the eligibility of tenants receiving HAPs under the Housing Voucher Cluster, the reexamination of family income and composition and utility allowance was not consistently performed and HUD 50058 was not updated and submitted at least once every 12 months to support the tenant’s continued eligibility to receive benefits through this program at the appropriate amounts. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $40,387. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2024-004, included on pages 227 and 228 of the Fiscal 2024 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend that HPD strengthen their internal controls governing the eligibility requirements, including implementing a control to ensure recertifications of family income and composition are performed at least once every 12 months and the tenants HAP amount and tenant utility allowance is adjusted as necessary to meet the eligibility requirements per 24 CFR sections 5.230, 5.609, 982.201 and 982.516. HUD 50058 forms should be submitted before the effective date of the annual recertification of tenants to inform HUD of updates to family income, composition and rent calculations as required.

New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (“DOHMH”) Finding #: 2025-003 Funding Year(s): 7/1/2024 – 6/30/2025 Public Health Emergency Preparedness (ALN 93.069) Contract Numbers: NU90TU000059 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Type of Finding: Level of Effort – Compliance and Internal Control (Control Deficiency) Criteria: As stipulated by Public Health Solutions ("PHS"), the pass-through grantor, in its sub-award agreement to DOHMH, awardees must maintain non-federal expenditures for health-care preparedness and public health security at a level that is not less than the average level of such non-federal expenditures maintained by the awardee for the preceding two-year (2) period. Condition/Context: We noted that total Public Health Emergency Preparedness (“PHEP”) non-federal expenditures incurred during fiscal year 2025 were below the average level of non-federal expenditures for the preceding two fiscal years. PHEP non-federal expenditures for fiscal year 2025 totaled $2,540,777; whereas the average PHEP non-federal expenditures for fiscal years 2023 & 2024 totaled $2,632,221. Cause/Effect: While DOHMH has a process in place to track and calculate non-federal expenditures for health-care preparedness and public health security, they did not consistently ensure progressive non-federal expenditures were adequately meeting the appropriate level of effort requirement. As a result, total programmatic non-federal expenditures for fiscal year 2025 did not meet the level of effort requirement. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that DOHMH strengthen their internal controls governing the level of effort requirement, including the appropriate tracking of progressive non-federal expenditures to ensure programmatic level of effort requirement is consistently met.

New York City Department of Youth & Community Development (“DYCD”) Finding #: 2025-004 Funding Year(s): 10/1/2023 - 9/30/2025 Community Services Block Grant (ALN 93.569) Contract Numbers: C1001474, C1002754 Pass-Through Agency: New York State Department of State Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Type of Finding: Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles - Noncompliance and Internal Control (Significant Deficiency) Criteria: Pursuant to annual federal appropriations acts, salary costs charged to federal awards may not exceed Executive Level II of the Federal Executive Pay Scale (the “federal salary cap”), as published by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Salary costs charged to federal programs may not exceed this cap and must be appropriately allocated and documented. Additionally, 2 CFR §200.430 requires that compensation for personal services charged to federal awards be reasonable, allowable, and in compliance with federal statutes and regulations. Further, 2 CFR §200.303 requires non-federal entities to establish and maintain effective internal controls over federal programs. Condition/Context: We selected a non-statistical sample of forty (40) payroll transactions charged to the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) during the audit period. Our testing identified four (4) instances where salary costs charged to the CSBG program exceeded the applicable federal salary cap. Total CSBG expenditures charged to the program during the audit period were $60,772,230 of which $79,077 was subject to testing. Cause/Effect: DYCD’s internal controls over payroll allocation and monitoring of the federal salary cap were not consistently designed or operating effectively. As a result, DYCD charged unallowable salary costs to the CSBG program, resulting in noncompliance with federal compensation requirements. However, the instances identified were limited in number to executive personnel and did not indicate a pervasive breakdown in DYCD’s overall payroll processing controls. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $19,979. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that DYCD strengthen internal controls over payroll and salary cost allocations by ensuring salary costs charged to CSBG are capped at the applicable federal salary limitation, enhancing supervisory review of payroll allocations, and periodically monitoring compensation charged to federally funded programs.

New York City Department of Youth & Community Development (“DYCD”) Finding #: 2025-005 Funding Year(s): 7/01/2023 – 6/30/2026 WIOA Cluster: WIOA Adult Program (ALN 17.258) WIOA Youth Activities (ALN 17.259) WIOA Dislocated Worker Formula Grants (ALN 17.278) Contract Numbers: 23A55AY000032 and 24A55AY000060 Pass-Through Agency: New York State Department of Labor Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Labor Type of Finding: Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles - Noncompliance and Internal Control (Significant Deficiency) Criteria: Pursuant to annual federal appropriations acts, salary costs charged to federal awards may not exceed Executive Level II of the Federal Executive Pay Scale (the “federal salary cap”), as published by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Salary costs charged to federal programs may not exceed this cap and must be appropriately allocated and documented. Additionally, 2 CFR §200.430 requires that compensation for personal services charged to federal awards be reasonable, allowable, and in compliance with federal statutes and regulations. Further, 2 CFR §200.303 requires non-federal entities to establish and maintain effective internal controls over federal programs. Condition/Context: We selected a non-statistical sample of forty (40) payroll transactions charged to the WIOA cluster during the audit period. Our testing identified four (4) instances where salary costs charged to the WIOA cluster exceeded the applicable federal salary cap. Total WIOA cluster expenditures charged to the program during the audit period were $101,260,543 of which $144,119 was subject to testing. Cause/Effect: DYCD’s internal controls over payroll allocation and monitoring of the federal salary cap were not consistently designed or operating effectively. As a result, DYCD charged unallowable salary costs to the WIOA cluster program, resulting in noncompliance with federal compensation requirements. However, the instances identified were limited in number to executive personnel and did not indicate a pervasive breakdown in DYCD’s overall payroll processing controls. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $22,826. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that DYCD strengthen internal controls over payroll and salary cost allocations by ensuring salary costs charged to the WIOA cluster are capped at the applicable federal salary limitation, enhancing supervisory review of payroll allocations, and periodically monitoring compensation charged to federally funded programs.

New York City Department of Small Business Services (“SBS”) Finding #: 2025-006 Funding Year(s): 7/01/2023 – 6/30/2026 WIOA Cluster: WIOA Adult Program (ALN 17.258) WIOA Dislocated Worker Formula Grants (ALN 17.278) Contract Numbers: 23A55AY000032 and 24A55AY000060 Pass-Through Agency: New York State Department of Labor Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Labor Type of Finding: Eligibility – Material Noncompliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: Pursuant to the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. §3101 et seq.) and its implementing regulations at 20 CFR Parts 680 and 681, individuals receiving services under the WIOA program must meet applicable eligibility requirements, and eligibility must be determined and supported by appropriate documentation prior to enrollment and receipt of program services. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of federal awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” (the “Green Book”) 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”) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: We selected a non‑statistical sample of forty (40) participants who received services under the WIOA Cluster during fiscal year 2025. For two (2) participants tested, SBS was not able to provide documentation sufficient to support that the individuals met all applicable WIOA eligibility requirements prior to the provision of program services. The WIOA programs administered by SBS are primarily service‑based in nature and do not involve direct cash assistance or subsidy payments to participants. Rather, program expenditures consist largely of costs associated with case management, training, supportive services, and workforce development activities delivered through SBS and its contracted service providers. As a result, eligibility deficiencies do not readily translate to quantifiable dollar amounts attributable to individual participants, and no specific questioned costs were identified for the instances noted. Cause/Effect: SBS’s internal controls over WIOA eligibility determination and documentation were not adequately designed or operating effectively to ensure that eligibility determinations were consistently completed prior to enrollment and supported by required documentation. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that SBS strengthen their internal controls over WIOA eligibility determination by ensuring eligibility is determined and documented prior to participant enrollment, implementing standardized eligibility documentation and review procedures, and enhancing supervisory review and monitoring to ensure ongoing compliance with WIOA requirements.

New York City Department of Education (“DOE”) Finding #: 2024-001 Funding Year(s): 7/1/2022 – 8/31/2023 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies (FAL #84.010) Contract Numbers: 4R4594A01, 3R1251A01, 3R1251L01, 3R1240A01, 3R1264A01 Twenty-First Century Community Learning Centers (FAL #84.287) Contract Numbers: 3R3915A01 English Language Acquisition Grants (FAL #84.365) Contract Number: 3R4151C01, 3R4151A01 Supporting Effective Instruction State Grant (FAL #84.367) Contract Numbers: 3R2664A01, 3R2651B01 Pass-Through Agency: New York State Department of Education Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Type of Finding: Reporting Compliance Criteria: As stipulated by the New York State Education Department (“NYSED”) Fiscal Guidelines for Federal and State Grants, program recipients are required to submit to NYSED a signed copy of the Final Expenditure Report for a Federal Project (“FS-10F”) within 90 days following the end of the grant award period. Condition/Context: Of the twenty-four (24) FS-10F reports submitted by the DOE during fiscal year 2024, we selected a sample of thirteen (13) FS-10F reports and found that ten (10) of the reports tested were submitted after the required due date, as follows: • Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies (FAL #84.010): of the eight (8) FS-10F reports tested, five (5) reports were submitted between 41 and 132 days late. • Twenty-First Century Community Learning Centers (FAL #84.287): of the one (1) FS-10F report tested, such report was submitted 180 days late. • English Language Acquisition Grants (FAL #84.365): of the two (2) FS-10F reports tested, the reports were submitted between 90 and 111 days late. • Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (FAL #84.367): of the two (2) FS-10F reports tested, both reports were submitted 90 days late. Cause/Effect: We were informed that due to open encumbrances which had not been fully liquidated by the FS-10F due date, the DOE was unable to complete and submit the FS-10F financial reports within the stipulated 90-day period, thus resulting in late-filed reports. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2023-001, included on pages 223 and 224 of the Fiscal 2023 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend the DOE consider establishing procedures and operational practices whereby disposition of open encumbrances is accelerated such that all FS-10F expenditure reports are prepared and submitted within the required 90-day timeframe.

New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (“DOHMH”) Finding #: 2024-002 Funding Year(s): 8/1/2019-7/31/2024, 8/1/2019-7/31/2026 Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Diseases (ELC) (FAL #93.323) Contract Numbers: 5 NU50CK000517, 6 NU50CK000517 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Type of Finding: Reporting - Compliance and Internal Control (Significant Deficiency) Criteria: In accordance with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) Grants Policy Statement, reports of expenditures are required as documentation of the financial status of grants according to the official accounting records of the recipient. Financial or expenditure reporting is accomplished using the Financial Status Report (“FSR”) (SF 269 or SF 269A). The FSR is required annually, and the report must be submitted for each budget period no later than 90 days after the close of the budget period or applicable 12-month period. Additionally, performance reports are required by the terms and conditions of the federal awards. As stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of Federal Awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” (the “Green Book”) 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”) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: In the prior year, a significant deficiency in internal controls was identified concerning the lack of sufficient evidence to support the review and approval of performance reports, and the submission of annual FSRs after the required reporting deadline of 90 days following the end of the budget period. For the performance reporting requirements, our inquiries with management during the current year revealed that no improvements were made to the operating effectiveness of this internal control process over compliance. For the FSR reporting requirement, from a non-statistical sample of six (6) annual FSRs subject to testing during fiscal year 2024, we identified four (4) FSRs that were submitted after the required reporting deadline of within 90 days following the end of the budget period. Cause/Effect: Although DOHMH indicated that they have established policies and procedures to ensure the accurate and timely completion and submission of required reports, we observed that appropriate reviews were not consistently performed and documented for both financial and performance reporting to ensure timely submission. Questioned Costs: None noted. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2023-008, included on pages 238 and 239 of the Fiscal 2023 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend that DOHMH enhance their internal controls over the reporting process by ensuring that all financial and special performance reports undergo documented review and approval before submission within the required timeframe.

New York City Administration for Children’s Services (“ACS”) and New York City Department of Education (“DOE”) Finding #: 2024-003 Funding Year(s): 4/1/2023 - 9/30/2024 CCDF Cluster: Child Care and Development Block Grant (FAL #93.575) Contract Numbers: 23-OCFS-LCM-12-R3 Pass-Through Agency: NYS Office of Children and Family Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Type of Finding: Eligibility - Material Noncompliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: As stipulated by the 45 CFR Part 98 Subpart C, to be eligible for services under the Child Care and Development Block Grant (“CCDBG”), a child shall (1) be under the age of thirteen (13) years of age or be under the age of nineteen (19) and physically or mentally incapable of caring for himself or herself; (2) Reside with a family whose income does not exceed 85 percent of the State's median income (SMI) and whose family assets do not exceed $1,000,000; and (3) reside with a parent or parents who are working or attending a job training or educational program; or receive, or need to receive, protective services. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of federal awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” (the “Green Book”) 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”) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: We selected a non-statistical sample of forty (40) individuals who received services under CCDBG during fiscal year 2024 and found that seven (7) of the individuals tested had errors, detailed as follows: • One (1) of the individuals tested from DOE did not meet some or all of the eligibility criteria as stipulated in 45 CFR Part 98 Subpart C; • For six (6) of the individuals tested, ACS paid for hours of care that exceeded the number of hours of care that the individual was eligible to receive based on the authorized hours determined during the eligibility approval process. Total CCDBG Benefits charged to the grant were $813,778,977 and total CCDBG benefits subjected to testing were $36,043. Cause/Effect: While ACS and DOE have a process in place to assess the eligibility of children, a comprehensive review was not consistently performed and documented to ensure the appropriate evidence and related approvals were maintained to support those determinations. This was due to a lack of a process ensuring enrollment and payment for services on behalf of the children were based on and agreed to the authorized hours determined during the eligibility review process. As a result, costs were incurred on behalf of certain children that did not meet all of the eligibility requirements, were not supported by appropriate documentation, or had errors in authorized hours. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $4,199. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2023-013, included on pages 248 and 249 of the Fiscal 2023 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend that ACS and DOE enhance their internal controls for eligibility requirements. This includes implementing a review checklist to ensure each child meets all eligibility criteria as outlined in 45 CFR Part 98 Subpart C during the eligibility determination process.

New York City Housing Preservation & Development (“HPD”) Finding #: 2024-004 Funding Year(s): 7/1/2023 – 6/30/2024 Housing Voucher Cluster: Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (FAL #14.871) Contract Numbers: N/A Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Type of Finding: Eligibility and Special Tests and Provisions (Utility Allowance Schedule) - Material Noncompliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: As stipulated by 24 CFR Section 982.201, prior to providing housing assistance payments (HAP) to participants, HPD must verify the eligibility of applicants based on their family income and composition. Per 24 CFR section 982.516, HPD must also reexamine family income and composition for each tenant at least once every 12 months to verify continued eligibility and adjust the HAP amount, as necessary. Further, as stipulated by 24 CFR Section 982.517, HPD must maintain an up-to-date utility allowance schedule and establish procedures to properly apply the updated utility allowances to each tenant’s HAP calculations as part of the annual reexamination process. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of Federal Awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” (the “Green Book”) 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”) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: To assess eligibility, HPD’s policy is to conduct annual recertifications of family income and composition. As part of that process, HPD sends a recertification package to the head of household, which contains documentation that the tenant must complete for verification purposes. HPD then analyzes and verifies all information included in the recertification package to determine if the tenant is eligible to continue to receive HAPs and adjust the tenant rent and HAP amounts as necessary for the following 12-month period. We selected a non-statistical sample of forty (40) tenants who received HAPs under the Housing Voucher Cluster during fiscal year 2024. For thirteen (13) of the tenants tested, HPD was not able to provide documentation to support that an eligibility recertification for the tenant, including a review of the utility allowance and HAP calculation, was performed within the previous 12 months, as required. Cause/Effect: While HPD has a process in place to assess the eligibility of tenants receiving HAPs under the Housing Voucher Cluster, the reexamination of family income and composition and utility allowance was not consistently performed at least once every 12 months to support the tenant’s continued eligibility to receive benefits through this program at the appropriate amounts. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2023-016, included on pages 254 and 255 of the Fiscal 2023 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend that HPD strengthen their internal controls governing the eligibility requirements, including implementing a control to ensure recertifications of family income and composition are performed at least once every 12 months and the tenants HAP amount and tenant utility allowance is adjusted as necessary to meet the eligibility requirements per 24 CFR sections 5.230, 5.609, 982.201 and 982.516.

New York City Housing Preservation & Development (“HPD”) Finding #: 2024-005 Funding Year(s): 7/1/2023 – 6/30/2024 Section 8 Project-Based Cluster: Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy (FAL #14.249) Lower Income Housing Assistance Program – Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation (FAL #14.856) Contract Numbers: N/A Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Type of Finding: Eligibility and Reporting - Material Noncompliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: As stipulated by 24 CFR Section 880.603, prior to providing housing assistance payments (HAP) to participants, HPD must verify the eligibility of applicants by (a) obtaining signed applications; (b) conducting verifications of family income and other pertinent information; (c) documenting inspections and tenant certifications, as appropriate; and, (d) determining that tenant income did not exceed the maximum limit set by HUD. HPD must also reexamine family income and composition for each tenant at least once every 12 months to verify continued eligibility and adjust the HAP amount, as necessary. Further, the HUD 50058 form, titled Family Report is used by Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) to collect information on families receiving house assistance through the program and submission is required before the effective date of the annual recertification. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of Federal Awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” (the “Green Book”) 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”) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: To assess eligibility, HPD’s policy is to conduct annual recertifications of family income and composition. As part of that process, HPD sends a recertification package to the head of household, which contains documentation that the tenant must complete for verification purposes. HPD then analyzes and verifies all information included in the recertification package to determine if the tenant is eligible to continue to receive HAPs and adjust the tenant rent and HAP amounts as necessary for the following 12-month period. The HUD 50058 form is submitted upon completion of the annual recertification to update family income, composition and rent calculations. We selected a non-statistical sample of forty (40) tenants who received HAPs under the Section 8 Project-Based Cluster during fiscal year 2024. For eighteen (18) of the tenants tested, HPD was not able to provide documentation to support that an eligibility recertification for the tenant, including a review of the HAP calculation, was performed within the previous 12 months, as required. For those eighteen (18) tenants, HPD did not submit the HUD 50058 form by the effective date of the annual recertification as required. Cause/Effect: While HPD has a process in place to assess the eligibility of tenants receiving HAPs under the Section 8 Project-Based Cluster, the reexamination of family income and composition was not consistently performed and HUD 50058 updated and submitted for each tenant at least once every 12 months to support the tenant’s continued eligibility to receive benefits through this program at the appropriate amounts. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2023-014, included on pages 250 and 251 of the Fiscal 2023 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend that HPD strengthen their internal controls governing the eligibility requirements, including implementing a control to ensure recertifications of family income and composition are performed at least once every 12 months and the tenants HAP amount is adjusted as necessary to meet the eligibility requirements per 24 CFR sections 880.603, 881.601, 882.514, 882.808, 833.701, 884.214, 886.119, and 886.318. HUD 50058 forms should be submitted before the effective date of the annual recertification of tenants to inform HUD of updates to family income, composition and rent calculations as required.

New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) Finding #: 2024-006 Funding Year(s): 9/1/2019-8/31/2026 Rail and Transit Security Grant Program (FAL #97.075) Contract Number(s): EMW-2019-RA-00004, EMW-2020-RA-00005, EMW-2021-RA-00004, EMW- EMW-2022-RA-00006, EMW-2023-RA-00003 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Type of Finding: Equipment and Real Property Management - Compliance and Internal Control (Significant Deficiency) Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR section 200.313(d)(1), property records must be maintained that include a description of the property, a serial number or other identification number, the source of funding for the property (including the FAIN), who holds title, the acquisition date, and cost of the property, percentage of Federal participation in the project costs for the Federal award under which the property was acquired, the location, use and condition of the property, and any ultimate disposition data including the date of disposal and sale price of the property. Condition/Context: The New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) utilizes the City’s Grants Tracking System (“GTS”), a citywide web-based inventory program, designed to standardize the tracking of federally funded equipment. Further, NYPD Command-designated grants coordinators are responsible for monitoring the equipment and updating the inventory on a periodic basis in accordance with federal guidelines. The NYPD Grants Unit periodically generates an inventory listing from GTS that includes the biennial inventory count due date for each item and distributes it to the assigned NYPD Command designated grant coordinators to ensure the inventory count is conducted timely and in accordance with federal requirements. After the completion of biennial inventory count, the NYPD Command-designated grants coordinators update the inventory count information to GTS. From a non-statistical sample of thirteen (13) pieces of equipment subjected to testing, we identified one (1) piece of equipment that was disposed of prior to the most recent inventory count, but the equipment was not removed from the active inventory listing. Cause/Effect: While NYPD had certain procedures in place to monitor their equipment purchased with Federal funding, such procedures were not adequate to ensure that each aspect of the equipment and real property management compliance requirements were performed and documented within the required timeframe, which resulted in the finding noted above. Without the appropriate internal controls and monitoring procedures in place, federally funded equipment could be inaccurately recorded on inventory records and not discovered and corrected timely, inventory could be misplaced, misappropriated, or otherwise disposed of outside of the requirements of the federal guidelines. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that NYPD strengthen controls over the inventory process to ensure dispositions of equipment are updated in the equipment records.

New York City Human Resources Administration (“HRA”) Finding #: 2024-007 Funding Year(s): 9/1/2020 - 9/1/2028 HOME Investment Partnerships Program (FAL #14.239) Contract Numbers: M-20-MC-36-0204 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Type of Finding: Allowable Costs and Eligibility - Compliance and Internal Control (Significant Deficiency) Criteria: In accordance with 23 CFR sections 1.9, 172.11(a), 420.113(a), and 630.106(a), costs incurred under federal awards are considered allowable and reimbursable when such costs are deemed necessary and reasonable; incurred subsequent to the date of authorization to proceed and in accordance with the conditions contained in the project agreement and the plans specifications; and, not included as costs used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements, among other things. As stipulated by 24 CFR §92.209, tenant-based rental assistance (“TBRA”) may only be provided to very low- and low-income families. The participating jurisdiction must determine that the family is very low- or low-income before the assistance is provided. During the period of assistance, the participating jurisdiction must annually determine that the family continues to be low-income. Also, the maximum monthly assistance that a participating jurisdiction may pay to, or on behalf of, a family may not exceed the difference between a rent standard for the unit size established by the participating jurisdiction and 30% of the family's monthly adjusted income. Additionally, the participating jurisdiction must disapprove a lease if the rent is not reasonable, based on rents that are charged for comparable unassisted rental units. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of federal awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” (the “Green Book”) 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”) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: The New York City Human Resources Administration (“HRA”) utilizes the Current System to assess beneficiaries’ eligibility to receive TBRA through the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (“HOME”). To assess eligibility, HRA program staff obtain income supporting documentation to determine if the household met the low-income requirement and to calculate the maximum subsidy amount to be paid by HRA. Additionally, a rent reasonableness valuation is performed which compares the current beneficiary’s rent to other rents charged for comparable units to ensure reasonableness. Upon the completion of the eligibility determination by an HRA staff member, a designated program supervisor reviews and approves the eligibility determination, subsidy amount, and tenant share within the Current System. In the prior year, a material weakness in internal controls was identified concerning incorrect TBRA payments. Our inquiries with management during the current year revealed that no improvements were made to the operating effectiveness of this internal control process. In fiscal 2024, total TBRA payments charged to the grant were $3,742,133, which is not material to the program overall. Cause/Effect: While HRA has a process in place to assess the eligibility of tenants and calculate the monthly TBRA payments on behalf of those tenants to ensure allowability of costs incurred, a comprehensive review was not consistently performed to support those determinations and calculations. As a result, costs were incurred on behalf of certain tenants that may not have met the eligibility requirements, or an incorrect amount may have been paid on their behalf. Questioned Costs: None noted. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2023-002, included on pages 225 through 226 of the Fiscal 2023 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend that HRA strengthen their internal controls governing the eligibility determination and monthly TBRA payment calculation process, including creating a comprehensive review checklist to ensure each tenant meets every eligibility requirement and HRA’s portion of the TBRA payments are properly calculated, and that appropriate supervisory review and approval is consistently performed and documented prior to processing payments and charging costs to the grant.

New York City Department of Education (“DOE”) Finding #: 2023-001 Funding Year(s): 7/1/2021 – 8/31/2022 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies (FAL #84.010) Contract Numbers: 2R1251N01, 2R1251A01, 2R1264A01, 2R1240A01 Twenty-First Century Community Learning Centers (FAL #84.287) Contract Numbers: 2R3901A01, 2R3911A01, 2R3913A01, 2R3916A01, 2R3922A01, 2R3931A01, 2R3903A01, 2R3904A01 English Language Acquisition Grants (FAL #84.365) Contract Number: 2R4164A01 Supporting Effective Instruction State Grant (FAL #84.367) Contract Numbers: 2R2664A01 Pass-Through Agency: New York State Department of Education Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Type of Finding: Reporting Compliance Criteria: As stipulated by the New York State Education Department (“NYSED”) Fiscal Guidelines for Federal and State Grants, program recipients are required to submit to NYSED a signed copy of the Final Expenditure Report for a Federal Project (“FS-10F”) within 90 days following the end of the grant award period. Condition/Context: Of the thirty-five (35) FS-10F reports submitted by the DOE during fiscal year 2023, we selected a sample of fourteen (14) FS-10F reports and found that fourteen (14) of the reports tested were submitted after the required due date, as follows: • Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies (FAL #84.010): of the four (4) FS-10F reports tested, such reports were submitted between 23 and 160 days late. • Twenty-First Century Community Learning Centers (FAL #84.287): of the eight (8) FS-10F reports tested, such reports were submitted between 85 and 103 days late. • English Language Acquisition Grants (FAL #84.365): of the one (1) FS-10F report tested, such report was submitted 167 days late. • Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (FAL #84.367): of the one (1) FS-10F report tested, such report was submitted 169 days late. Cause/Effect: We were informed that due to open encumbrances which had not been fully liquidated by the FS-10F due date, the DOE was unable to complete and submit the FS-10F financial reports within the stipulated 90-day period, thus resulting in late-filed reports. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2022-001, included on pages 232 and 233 of the Fiscal 2022 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend the DOE consider establishing procedures and operational practices whereby disposition of open encumbrances is accelerated such that all FS-10F expenditure reports are prepared and submitted within the required 90-day timeframe.

New York City Human Resources Administration (“HRA”) Finding #: 2023-002 Funding Year(s): 10/19/2017 - 9/1/2027 HOME Investment Partnerships Program (FAL #14.239) Contract Numbers: M-17-MC-36-0204; M-18-MC-36-0204; M-19-MC-36-0204 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Type of Finding: Allowable Costs and Eligibility - Material Noncompliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: In accordance with 23 CFR sections 1.9, 172.11(a), 420.113(a), and 630.106(a), costs incurred under federal awards are considered allowable and reimbursable when such costs are deemed necessary and reasonable; incurred subsequent to the date of authorization to proceed and in accordance with the conditions contained in the project agreement and the plans specifications; and, not included as costs used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements, among other things. As stipulated by 24 CFR §92.209, tenant-based rental assistance (“TBRA”) may only be provided to very low- and low-income families. The participating jurisdiction must determine that the family is very low- or low-income before the assistance is provided. During the period of assistance, the participating jurisdiction must annually determine that the family continues to be low-income. Also, the maximum monthly assistance that a participating jurisdiction may pay to, or on behalf of, a family may not exceed the difference between a rent standard for the unit size established by the participating jurisdiction and 30% of the family's monthly adjusted income. Additionally, the participating jurisdiction must disapprove a lease if the rent is not reasonable, based on rents that are charged for comparable unassisted rental units. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of federal awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” (the “Green Book”) 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”) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: The New York City Human Resources Administration (“HRA”) utilizes the Current System to assess beneficiaries’ eligibility to receive tenant based rental assistance through the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (“HOME”). To assess eligibility, HRA program staff obtain income supporting documentation to determine if the household met the low-income requirement and to calculate the maximum subsidy amount to be paid by HRA. Additionally, a rent reasonableness valuation is performed which compares the current beneficiary’s rent to other rents charged for comparable units to ensure reasonableness. Upon the completion of the eligibility determination by an HRA staff member, a designated program supervisor reviews and approves the eligibility determination, subsidy amount, and tenant share within the Current System. We selected a non-statistical sample of forty (40) rental assistance payments made on behalf of tenants during fiscal 2023 and found that eight (8) of the selections had errors as follows: • For five (5) of the eight (8) selections, it was noted that HRA’s share of monthly rent was determined to be lower than the amounts actually paid on behalf of the tenants. For these selections, HRA’s share of monthly rent was calculated as $1,709, $1,293, $1,410, $1,078, and $1,363. However, due to manual input errors, the amounts actually paid on behalf of these tenants were $1,742, $1,320, $1,469, $1,096, and $1,521, respectively. • For three (3) of the eight (8) selections, it was noted that HRA’s share of monthly rent was determined to be higher than the amounts actually paid on behalf of the tenants. For these selections, HRA’s share of monthly rent was calculated as $2,326, $1,240, and $1,740. However, due to manual input errors, the amounts actually paid on behalf of these tenants were $2,233, $1,210, and $1,640 respectively. Total TBRA payments charged to the grant were $5,521,322 and total TBRA benefits subjected to testing were $60,087. Cause/Effect: While HRA has a process in place to assess the eligibility of tenants and calculate the monthly TBRA payments on behalf of those tenants to ensure allowability of costs incurred, a comprehensive review was not consistently performed to support those determinations and calculations. As a result, costs were incurred on behalf of certain tenants that may not have met the eligibility requirements, or an incorrect amount may have been paid on their behalf. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs totaled $296. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2022-012, included on pages 253 through 255 of the Fiscal 2022 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend that HRA strengthen their internal controls governing the eligibility determination and monthly TBRA payment calculation process, including creating a comprehensive review checklist to ensure each tenant meets every eligibility requirement and HRA’s portion of the TBRA payments are properly calculated, and that appropriate supervisory review and approval is consistently performed and documented prior to processing payments and charging costs to the grant.

New York City Department of Human Resources Administration (“HRA”) Finding #: 2023-003 Funding Year(s): 9/13/2021 – 9/12/2023 Emergency Solutions Grants Program (FAL #14.231) Contract Number: E21MC360104 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Type of Finding: Special Tests and Provisions - Compliance and Internal Control (Control Deficiency) Criteria: Per 24 CFR Section 576.203(a)(2), within 180 days after the date that HUD signs the grant agreement with the metropolitan city, urban county, or territory, the recipient must obligate all the grant amount, except the amount for its administrative costs. Total grant award obligations are required to be reported to HUD through the Integrated Disbursement and Information System (“IDIS”), using a PR-91 ESG Financial Summary Report. Condition/Context: HUD signed HRA’s Emergency Solutions Grants Program (“ESG”) grant agreement #E21MC360104 on September 13, 2021, and as such the total grant amount was required to be obligated by March 12, 2022. Per the PR-91 ESG Financial Summary Report submitted by HRA through IDIS on February 2, 2023, none of the total $14,799,420 award had been obligated by the required due date. Cause/Effect: While HRA has policies and procedures in place regarding the review and approval of the PR-91 ESG Financial Report, this process did not include a comprehensive review to ensure that HRA obligated all grant funding within the required timeframe prior to submission. As such, this resulted in HRA’s non-compliance. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2022-003, included on page 236 of the Fiscal 2022 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend that HRA strengthen their internal controls over the special tests and provisions process to ensure all grant amounts are obligated within the required 180-day timeframe, and that the obligation is properly reviewed prior to the PR-91 ESG Financial Report submission through IDIS.

New York City Human Resources Administration (“HRA”) Finding #: 2023-004 Funding Year(s): 9/13/2021 - 11/8/2026 Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) (FAL #14.241) Contract Numbers: NYH21F002; NYH22F002; NYH23F002 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Type of Finding: Special Tests and Provisions - Internal Control (Significant Deficiency) Criteria: All housing that is assisted under specific HOPWA activities per CFR sections 574.300(b) (3), (4), (5), and (8) must meet specific applicable Housing Quality Standards (“HQS”) as outlined in 24 CFR section 574.310(b) determined by on-site inspections. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of federal awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” (the “Green Book”) 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”) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: Prior to providing rental assistance to landlords, HRA conducts on-site inspections to ensure each unit meets all applicable Housing Quality Standards. During each inspection, a HRA Case Manager would assign a Quality Assurance (“QA”) Inspector to complete an inspection checklist, which outlines each standard and documents if the unit passed or failed each requirement. The QA Inspector would sign off on the report and provide it to the landlord, noting if any repairs are required. In addition to the initial annual inspection, if there were any adverse findings identified, the Case Manager would conduct follow-up visits for that unit until the findings were remediated. Landlords are required to address any deficiencies and violations found through a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) within 30 days of the receipt of the failed inspection letter. HRA would then ensure a physical inspection was conducted prior to June 30, 2023. In accordance with the individual agreements between HRA and the landlords of the units receiving the rental assistance, the landlords are responsible for maintaining compliance with the HQS, and the HRA inspections are conducted to help ensure the respective landlords are maintaining compliance. We selected a non-statistical sample of twenty-four (24) units that were subject to an initial inspection by HRA during fiscal 2023 and noted that for eight (8) selections, HRA was unable to provide a copy of the inspection checklist that was completed by the QA Inspector prior to assistance being provided for the unit. Cause/Effect: While HRA conducts monitoring procedures to help ensure that Housing Quality Standards are maintained and, when necessary, related repairs are performed by the respective landlords within the prescribed 30-day timeframe, we noted that the inspection checklists used to document such procedures were not consistently maintained. If controls aren’t in place to ensure each unit is properly inspected in accordance with the guidelines and HRA’s policies, there is a risk that some units may not meet the appropriate quality of living conditions for tenants and, therefore, not comply with the applicable Housing Quality Standards. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2022-014, included on pages 258 and 259 of the Fiscal 2022 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend that HRA strengthen their internal controls governing the Housing Quality Standards inspection process, including that appropriate documentation is maintained for each inspection performed, to ensure compliance with the requirements is met for each unit under their supervision.

New York City Human Resources Administration (“HRA”) Finding #: 2023-005 Funding Year(s): 9/13/2021 - 11/8/2026 Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) (FAL #14.241) Contract Numbers: NYH21F002; NYH22F002; NYH23F002 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Type of Finding: Eligibility - Compliance and Internal Control (Significant Deficiency) Criteria: As stipulated by 24 CFR Section 574.3, to be eligible to receive HOPWA funded benefits, a participant must be diagnosed with an acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or related diseases and be a low-income individual, as determined by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. HRA utilizes the household income of eligible participants to calculate the monthly rental assistance payment to be made on their behalf. The amount of grant funds used to pay monthly assistance for an eligible person may not exceed the difference between the lower of the rent standard or reasonable rent. Per 24 CFR 574.320(a)(2) the rent standard shall be established by the grantee and shall be no more than the published section 8 fair market rent (FMR) or the HUD-approved community-wide exception rent for the unit size. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of federal awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” (the “Green Book”) 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”) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: From a non-statistical sample of sixty-five (65) rental assistance payments made on behalf of tenants during fiscal year 2023 that were selected for testing, we identified the following: • For two (2) of the selections, HRA utilized household income that was lower than the participants’ actual income, which caused HRA’s monthly rental assistance payment for the selected period to be higher than it should have been. The excess monthly payments for these selections totaled $6. • For one (1) of the selections, the participant’s share of the monthly rent was incorrectly recorded as $660 instead of $664, which caused HRA’s monthly rental assistance payment for the selected period to be higher than it should have been. The excess payments for this selection totaled $4. Total rental assistance payments charged to the grant were $21,825,396 and total HOPWA rent subsidies subjected to testing were $83,509. Cause/Effect: While HRA has processes in place to assess the eligibility of tenants to receive HOPWA benefits and to calculate the monthly rental assistance payments to be made on their behalf, they did not consistently ensure that the inputs utilized to calculate the monthly rental assistance payment were accurate. As a result, an incorrect monthly rental assistance amount was paid on behalf of certain tenants. Questioned Costs: None noted. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2022-013, included on pages 256 and 257 of the Fiscal 2022 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend that HRA strengthen their internal controls governing the eligibility process, including ensuring all inputs utilized to calculate the monthly rental assistance amount is accurate and that the review performed to verify that each participant’s rent is not above the FMR limit is appropriately documented, prior to processing payments and charging costs to the grant.

New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (“HPD”) Finding #: 2023-006 Funding Year(s): 10/19/2017 - 09/01/2029 HOME Investment Partnership Program (FAL #14.239) Contract Number: M-17-MC-36-0204; M-18-MC-36-0204; M-19-MC-36-0204; M-20-MC-36-0204, M-21-MC-36-0204 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Type of Finding: Special Tests and Provisions Compliance Criteria: During the period of affordability for which the non-federal entity must maintain subsidized housing for the HOME-assisted rental housing program, the participating jurisdiction must perform on-site inspections at least once every three (3) years to determine compliance with Housing Quality Standards (24 CFR sections 92.209(i), 92.251(f), and 92.504(d)). Furthermore, for any failed inspections, the appropriate repairs to bring the building into compliance must be performed timely. Condition/Context: HPD has policies and procedures in place to identify units which require Housing Quality Standards inspections and performs inspections of these units to help ensure that any needed repairs are completed within the stipulated timeframe. For those units in need of repairs, HPD’s policy requires that repairs be completed within 90 days after the initial inspection and supported by a Certificate of Repairs form. In accordance with the individual agreements between HPD and the Sponsors of the respective housing projects, the Sponsors are responsible for maintaining compliance with the Housing Quality Standards, and HPD inspections are conducted to help ensure the respective Sponsors are maintaining compliance. Additionally, there are clauses within the individual agreements between HPD and the Sponsor which allows HPD to exercise remedies such as restricting funding to Sponsors who do not comply with the Housing Quality Standards. Our procedures identified six (6) instances from a sample of forty (40), where the necessary repairs were not made by the Sponsors within the stipulated 90-day period. Cause/Effect: While HPD conducts monitoring procedures to help ensure that Housing Quality Standards are maintained and, when necessary, related repairs are performed by the respective Sponsors within the prescribed 90-day timeframe, we noted that the necessary repairs were not consistently completed within the stipulated timeframe or not completed at all. Incomplete and/or repairs that do not meet the stipulated completion timeframe could result in Sponsored projects not maintaining the appropriate quality of living conditions for tenants and, therefore, not comply with the applicable Housing Quality Standards. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2022-008, included on pages 243 and 244 of the Fiscal 2022 Single Audit report.   Recommendation: While contract provisions between HPD and the respective Sponsors permit HPD to exercise remedies, which may include the withdrawal of future funding, HPD did not elect to exercise any such remedies. Accordingly, we recommend that HPD continue to strengthen its monitoring of Sponsors in connection with housing quality inspections and determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether to exercise appropriate remedies in accordance with contract provisions or consider documenting its rationale for not doing so.

Administration for Children’s Services (“ACS”) Finding #: 2023-007 Funding Year(s): 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2028 Foster Care – Title IV - E (FAL #93.658) Contract Numbers: 1901NYFOST, 2001NYFOST, 2301NYFOST Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Type of Finding: Eligibility - Compliance and Internal Control (Significant Deficiency) Criteria: A child’s removal from the home (unless removal is pursuant to a voluntary placement agreement) must be in accordance with a judicial determination to the effect that continuation in the home would be contrary to the child’s welfare, or that placement in foster care would be in the best interest of the child. The judicial determination must be explicitly stated in the court order and made on a case-by-case basis. The precise language “contrary to the welfare” does not have to be included in the removal court order, but the order must include language to the effect that remaining in the home will be contrary to the child’s welfare, safety, or best interest (45 CFR section 1356.21(c)). The judicial determination of contrary to the welfare must be in the first court ruling that sanctions the child’s removal from home (45 CFR section 1356.21(c)). Acceptable documentation is a court order containing a judicial determination regarding contrary to the welfare or a transcript of the court proceedings reflecting this determination (45 CFR section 1356.21(d)). Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of federal awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” (the “Green Book”) 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”) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: The New York City Administration for Children’s Services (“ACS”) utilizes an eligibility checklist mandated by the State of New York (“NY State”) to assess beneficiaries’ eligibility to receive benefits through the Foster Care program. Upon the completion of the eligibility checklist by an ACS staff member, ACS’ policies and procedures require that a designated supervisor review and approve the checklist prior to ACS determining a child to be IV-E eligible. From a non-statistical sample of forty (40) eligibility files subject to testing, we identified one (1) eligibility redetermination checklist that did not include evidence of the required approval by a supervisor and two (2) redetermination checklists with untimely approval by a supervisor. In addition, those same two (2) files did not contain a copy of the court order until a year after the judicial finding was made. Cause/Effect: While ACS has established policies and procedures to help ensure eligibility requirements are met, we noted the appropriate reviews were not consistently performed, which could result in an ineligible individual receiving benefits. However, with respect to the forty (40) sampled files referred to above, ACS personnel were able to demonstrate that all such individuals were in fact eligible for Foster Care benefits, and accordingly, program eligibility requirements were satisfied for these sampled files. Questioned Costs: None noted. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that ACS strengthen controls over the foster care eligibility process to ensure the appropriate supervisory review and approval is consistently performed.

New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (“DOHMH”) Finding #: 2023-008 Funding Year(s): 8/1/2019 - 7/31/2024 Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Diseases (ELC) (FAL #93.323) Contract Number: 5 NU50CK000517, 6 NU50CK000517 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Type of Finding: Reporting – Internal Control (Significant Deficiency) Criteria: In accordance with the U.S Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) Grants Policy Statement, reports of expenditures are required as documentation of the financial status of grants according to the official accounting records of the recipient. Financial or expenditure reporting is accomplished using the Financial Status Report (“FSR”) (SF 269 or SF 269A). The FSR is required annually, and the report must be submitted for each budget period no later than 90 days after the close of the budget period or applicable 12-month period. Additionally, special reports are required by the terms and conditions of the federal awards. As stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of federal awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” (the “Green Book”) 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”) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: From a non-statistical sample of four (4) annual FSRs subject to testing, we identified one (1) FSR that was submitted after the required reporting deadline of within 90 days following the end of the budget period. In addition, we selected a non-statistical sample of twenty-four (24) special performance reports required to be filed. While the reports were prepared and submitted promptly in accordance with the reporting deadlines, for all twenty-four (24) selections, DOHMH was unable to provide supporting documentation that a review was performed to verify that the performance report was accurately prepared and submitted. Cause/Effect: While DOHMH has established policies and procedures to ensure that the required reports are accurately completed and submitted on a timely basis, we noted the appropriate reviews were not consistently performed and documented for both financial and performance reporting thus resulting in one (1) FSR that was submitted after the required reporting deadline of within 90 days following the end of the budget period. Questioned Costs: None noted. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that DOHMH strengthen their internal controls over the reporting process to include documented review and approval all financial and special performance reports prior to submission within the required timeframe.

New York City Department of Investigation (“DOI”) Finding #: 2023-009 Funding Year(s): 7/1/2022 – 6/30/2023 Equitable Sharing Program (FAL #16.922) Contract Numbers: N/A Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Justice Type of Finding: Equipment and Real Property Management - Compliance and Internal Control (Significant Deficiency) Criteria: As stipulated by 2 CFR section 200.313(d)(2), a physical inventory of property and equipment acquired under a federal award must be taken, and the results reconciled with the property records, at least once every two years. Also, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of federal awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” (the “Green Book”) 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”) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: From a non-statistical sample of forty (40) pieces of equipment subjected to testing, DOI was unable to provide supporting documentation for two (2) of the selections, that a review and approval of the inventory had taken place at the time the inventory was conducted. Cause/Effect: While DOI had certain procedures in place to monitor their equipment purchased with federal funding, such procedures were not adequate to ensure that each aspect of the equipment and real property management compliance requirements were performed and documented within the requirement timeframe, which resulted in the findings noted above. Without the appropriate internal controls and monitoring procedures in place, federally funded equipment could be inaccurately recorded on inventory records and not discovered and corrected timely, inventory could be misplaced, misappropriated, or otherwise disposed of outside of the requirements of the federal guidelines Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2022-009, included on pages 245 through 247 of the Fiscal 2022 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend that DOI strengthen controls over the inventory process to ensure biennial inventory counts are consistently performed over all equipment within the required timeframe, and that the review and approval of each inventory performed is appropriately documented.

New York City Department for the Aging (“DFTA”) Finding #: 2023-010 Funding Year(s): 07/01/2022 - 06/30/2023 New York City Department for the Aging: Aging Cluster (FAL #93.044, 93.045 & 93.053) Contract Number: N/A Pass-Through Agency: New York State Office for the Aging Type of Finding: Subrecipient Monitoring Compliance and Internal Control (Significant Deficiency) Criteria: As stipulated in 2 CFR 200.332(f) pass-through entities should verify that every subrecipient that expends $750,000 or more in federal awards during their fiscal year has a single or program-specific audit conducted for that fiscal year in accordance with 2 CFR 200.501. Additionally, per 2 CFR 200.512(a)(1) the audit must be completed and the data collection form along with the reporting package must be submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse within the earlier of 30 calendar days after receipt of the auditor’s report(s), or nine months after the end of the audit period. Condition/Context: Of the forty (40) subrecipients under the Aging Cluster that were selected for testing, four (4) of the single audit report dates were beyond the nine-month required submission date required by 2 CFR 200.512(a)(1). For these four (4) selections, DFTA was unable to provide supporting documentation of notification by the subrecipient of the late submission and acknowledgment of the notification by DFTA. Cause/Effect: While DFTA has established subrecipient monitoring procedures, we noted that monitoring of subrecipient compliance with federal statues, regulations and terms and conditions of the federal award were not consistently performed and documented. Missing or incomplete monitoring procedures could result in subrecipients not complying with Uniform Guidance reporting and/or other program specific compliance requirements. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that DFTA create a comprehensive internal control structure which ensures that all subrecipient compliance requirements stipulated by 2 CFR 200.332 are being met, including following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the federal award provided to the subrecipient detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient.

New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) Finding #: 2023-011 Funding Year(s): 9/1/2018 - 8/31/2025 Port Security Grant Program (FAL #97.056) Contract Number(s): EMW-2018-PU-00123-S01, EMW-2019-PU-00316-S01, EMW-2020-PU-00278-S01, EMW-2021-PU-00321-S01, EMW-2022-PU-00311-S01 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Type of Finding: Equipment and Real Property Management - Compliance and Internal Control (Control Deficiency) Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR section 200.313(d)(1), property records must be maintained that include a description of the property, a serial number or other identification number, the source of funding for the property (including the FAIN), who holds title, the acquisition date, and cost of the property, percentage of federal participation in the project costs for the federal award under which the property was acquired, the location, use and condition of the property, and any ultimate disposition data including the date of disposal and sale price of the property. Condition/Context: The New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) utilizes the City’s Grants Tracking System (“GTS”), a citywide web-based inventory program, designed to standardize the tracking of federally funded equipment. Further, NYPD Command-designated grants coordinators are responsible for monitoring the equipment and updating the inventory on a periodic basis in accordance with federal guidelines. The NYPD Grants Unit periodically generates an inventory listing from GTS that includes the biennial inventory count due date for each item and distributes it to the assigned NYPD Command designated grant coordinators to ensure the inventory count is conducted timely and in accordance with federal requirements. After the completion of biennial inventory count, the NYPD Command-designated grants coordinators update the inventory count information to GTS. From a non-statistical sample of twenty (20) pieces of equipment subjected to testing, we identified one (1) piece of equipment that was disposed of prior to the most recent inventory count, but the equipment was not removed from the active inventory listing. Cause/Effect: While NYPD had certain procedures in place to monitor their equipment purchased with federal funding, such procedures were not adequate to ensure that each aspect of the equipment and real property management compliance requirements were performed and documented within the required timeframe, which resulted in the finding noted above. Without the appropriate internal controls and monitoring procedures in place, federally funded equipment could be inaccurately recorded on inventory records and not discovered and corrected timely, inventory could be misplaced, misappropriated, or otherwise disposed of outside of the requirements of the federal guidelines. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that NYPD strengthen controls over the inventory process to ensure dispositions of equipment are updated in the equipment records.

New York City Fire Department (“FDNY”) Finding #: 2023-012 Funding Year(s): 9/1/2018 - 8/31/2024 Port Security Grant Program (FAL #97.056) Contract Number(s): EMW-2018-PU-00004-S01, EMW-2020-PU-00020-S01, EMW-2021-PU-00015-S01, EMW-2019-PU-00013-S01 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Type of Finding: Equipment and Real Property Management - Compliance and Internal Control (Significant Deficiency) Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR section 200.313(d)(1), property records must be maintained that include a description of the property, a serial number or other identification number, the source of funding for the property (including the FAIN), who holds title, the acquisition date, and cost of the property, percentage of federal participation in the project costs for the federal award under which the property was acquired, the location, use and condition of the property, and any ultimate disposition data including the date of disposal and sale price of the property. Condition/Context: The New York City Fire Department (“FDNY”) utilizes the City’s Grants Tracking System (“GTS”), a citywide web-based inventory program, designed to standardize the tracking of federally funded equipment. Further, FDNY Command-designated grants coordinators are responsible for monitoring the equipment and updating the inventory on a periodic basis in accordance with federal guidelines. The FDNY Grants Unit periodically generates an inventory listing from GTS that includes the biennial inventory count due date for each item and distributes it to the assigned FDNY Command designated grant coordinators to ensure the inventory count is conducted timely and in accordance with federal requirements. After the completion of biennial inventory count, the FDNY Command-designated grants coordinators update the inventory count information to GTS. From a non-statistical sample of twenty (20) pieces of equipment subjected to testing, we identified three (3) pieces of equipment that were disposed of prior to the most recent inventory count but the equipment was not removed from the active inventory listing. Cause/Effect: While FDNY had certain procedures in place to monitor their equipment purchased with federal funding, such procedures were not adequate to ensure that each aspect of the equipment and real property management compliance requirements were consistently performed and documented, which resulted in the findings noted above. Without the appropriate internal controls and monitoring procedures in place, federally funded equipment could be inaccurately recorded on inventory records and not discovered and corrected timely, inventory could be misplaced, misappropriated, or otherwise disposed of outside of the requirements of the federal guidelines Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that FDNY strengthen controls over the inventory process to ensure dispositions of equipment are updated in the equipment records, inventories performed are reconciled back to equipment records, and biennial inventory counts are consistently performed for all equipment within the required timeframe.

Administration for Children’s Services (“ACS”) and New York City Human Resources Administration (“HRA”) Finding #: 2023-013 Funding Year(s): 10/1/2021 - 9/30/2023 CCDF Cluster: Child Care and Development Block Grant (FAL #93.575) Contract Numbers: 22-OCFS-LCM-08, 23-OCFS-LCM-12-R1 Pass-Through Agency: NYS Office of Children and Family Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Type of Finding: Eligibility - Material Noncompliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: As stipulated by the 45 CFR Part 98 Subpart C, to be eligible for services under the Child Care and Development Block Grant (“CCDBG”), a child shall (1) be under the age of thirteen (13) years of age or be under the age of nineteen (19) and physically or mentally incapable of caring for himself or herself; (2) Reside with a family whose income does not exceed 85 percent of the State's median income (SMI) and whose family assets do not exceed $1,000,000; and (3) reside with a parent or parents who are working or attending a job training or educational program; or receive, or need to receive, protective services. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of federal awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” (the “Green Book”) 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”) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: We selected a non-statistical sample of forty (40) individuals who received services under CCDBG during fiscal year 2023 and found that five (5) of the individuals tested had errors as follows: • One (1) of the individuals tested from HRA did not meet some or all of the eligibility criteria as stipulated in 45 CFR Part 98 Subpart C; • For four (4) of the individuals, HRA was not able to provide documentation to support that the individual met all the eligibility criteria as stipulated in 45 CFR Part 98 Subpart C; and, Total CCDBG Benefits charged to the grant were $532,211,608 and total CCDBG benefits subjected to testing were $37,776. Cause/Effect: While ACS and HRA have a process in place to assess the eligibility of children, a comprehensive review was not consistently performed and documented to ensure the appropriate evidence and related approvals were maintained to support those determinations. As a result, costs were incurred on behalf of certain children that did not meet all of the eligibility requirements or were not supported by appropriate documentation.   Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $520. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2022-015, included on pages 260 and 261 of the Fiscal 2022 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend that ACS and HRA strengthen their internal controls governing the eligibility requirements, including implementing a review checklist to ensure the child meets every eligibility requirement per 45 CFR Part 98 Subpart C during the eligibility determination process.

New York City Housing Preservation & Development (“HPD”) Finding #: 2023-014 Funding Year(s): 7/1/2022 – 6/30/2023 Section 8 Project-Based Cluster: Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy (FAL #14.249) Lower Income Housing Assistance Program – Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation (FAL #14.856) Contract Numbers: N/A Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Type of Finding: Eligibility and Special Tests and Provisions - Material Noncompliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: As stipulated by 24 CFR Section 880.603, prior to providing housing assistance payments (HAP) to participants, HPD must verify the eligibility of applicants by (a) obtaining signed applications; (b) conducting verifications of family income and other pertinent information; (c) documenting inspections and tenant certifications, as appropriate; and, (d) determining that tenant income did not exceed the maximum limit set by HUD. HPD must also reexamine family income and composition for each tenant at least once every 12 months to verify continued eligibility and adjust the HAP amount, as necessary. Further, HPD must maintain an up-to-date utility allowance schedule and establish procedures to properly apply the updated utility allowances to each tenant’s HAP calculations as part of the annual reexamination process. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of Federal Awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” (the “Green Book”) 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”) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: To assess eligibility, HPD’s policy is to conduct annual recertifications of family income and composition. As part of that process, HPD sends a recertification package to the head of household, which contains documentation that the tenant must complete for verification purposes. HPD then analyzes and verifies all information included in the recertification package to determine if the tenant is eligible to continue to receive HAPs and adjust the tenant rent and HAP amounts as necessary for the following 12-month period. We selected a non-statistical sample of forty (40) tenants who received HAPs under the Section 8 Project-Based Cluster during fiscal year 2023. For twenty-five (25) of the tenants tested, HPD was not able to provide documentation to support that an eligibility recertification for the tenant, including a review of the utility allowance and HAP calculation, was performed within the previous 12 months, as required. Cause/Effect: While HPD has a process in place to assess the eligibility of tenants receiving HAPs under the Section 8 Project-Based Cluster, the reexamination of family income and composition and utility allowance was not consistently performed for each tenant at least once every 12 months to support the tenant’s continued eligibility to receive benefits through this program at the appropriate amounts. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that HPD strengthen their internal controls governing the eligibility requirements, including implementing a control to ensure recertifications of family income and composition are performed at least once every 12 months and the tenants HAP amount and tenant utility allowance is adjusted as necessary to meet the eligibility requirements per 24 CFR sections 880.603, 881.601, 882.514, 882.808, 833.701, 884.214, 886.119, and 886.318.

New York City Housing Preservation & Development (“HPD”) Finding #: 2023-015 Funding Year(s): 7/1/2022 – 6/30/2023 Section 8 Project-Based Cluster: Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy (FAL #14.249) Lower Income Housing Assistance Program – Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation (FAL #14.856) Contract Numbers: N/A Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Type of Finding: Special Tests and Provisions - Material Noncompliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: Per 24 CFR Section 5.705, a property must be inspected and meet specific Housing Quality Standards (“HQS”) before the property is approved for participation in any of the HUD housing programs. As stipulated in 24 CFR 882.516, in addition to the inspections required prior to the execution of the contract, HPD must inspect contract units at least annually, and at such other times as may be necessary to assure that the owner is meeting the obligations to maintain the units and provide the agreed upon utilities and other services. Further, as per HUD regulation 24 CFR 982.404(a)(3), for any failed inspections, HPD is required to verify that the HQS failure items have been repaired to bring the unit into compliance within 30 days. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of Federal Awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” (the “Green Book”) 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”) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: HPD has policies and procedures in place to identify units which require HQS inspections and performs inspections of these units to help ensure that any needed repairs are completed within the stipulated timeframe. For those units in need of repairs, HPD’s policy requires that those repairs be completed within thirty (30) days after the initial inspection. From a non-statistical sample of forty (40) units that were selected for testing, we identified the following: • For thirty-three (33) of the units tested, HPD was not able to provide documentation to support that an HQS inspection was performed for the unit under contract within the previous 12 months, as required. • For eight (8) of the tenants tested where the unit under contract failed to meet HQS standards, HPD was not able to provide documentation to support that HPD verified the correction of the failed items through reinspection or alternative means. Cause/Effect: While HPD has a process in place to perform periodic HQS inspections for the units under contract that are part of the Section 8 Project-Based Cluster, a HQS inspection was not consistently performed at least once every 12 months to support that the owner is meeting the obligations to maintain the units and provide the agreed upon utilities and other services, as required. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that HPD strengthen their internal controls governing the HQS inspection requirements, including implementing controls to ensure inspections are performed annually for each unit under contract, and for any failed inspections, to verify that the HQS failure items have been repaired to bring the unit into compliance within thirty (30) days, as required.

New York City Housing Preservation & Development (“HPD”) Finding #: 2023-016 Funding Year(s): 7/1/2022 – 6/30/2023 Housing Voucher Cluster: Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (FAL #14.871) Contract Numbers: N/A Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Type of Finding: Eligibility and Special Tests and Provisions - Material Noncompliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: As stipulated by 24 CFR Section 982.201, prior to providing housing assistance payments (HAP) to participants, HPD must verify the eligibility of applicants based on their family income and composition. Per 24 CFR section 982.516, HPD must also reexamine family income and composition for each tenant at least once every 12 months to verify continued eligibility and adjust the HAP amount, as necessary. Further, as stipulated by 24 CFR Section 982.517, HPD must maintain an up-to-date utility allowance schedule and establish procedures to properly apply the updated utility allowances to each tenant’s HAP calculations as part of the annual reexamination process. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of Federal Awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” (the “Green Book”) 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”) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: To assess eligibility, HPD’s policy is to conduct annual recertifications of family income and composition. As part of that process, HPD sends a recertification package to the head of household, which contains documentation that the tenant must complete for verification purposes. HPD then analyzes and verifies all information included in the recertification package to determine if the tenant is eligible to continue to receive HAPs and adjust the tenant rent and HAP amounts as necessary for the following 12-month period. We selected a non-statistical sample of forty (40) tenants who received HAPs under the Housing Voucher Cluster during fiscal year 2023. For eighteen (18) of the tenants tested, HPD was not able to provide documentation to support that an eligibility recertification for the tenant, including a review of the utility allowance and HAP calculation, was performed within the previous 12 months, as required. Cause/Effect: While HPD has a process in place to assess the eligibility of tenants receiving HAPs under the Housing Voucher Cluster, the reexamination of family income and composition and utility allowance was not consistently performed at least once every 12 months to support the tenant’s continued eligibility to receive benefits through this program at the appropriate amounts. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that HPD strengthen their internal controls governing the eligibility requirements, including implementing a control to ensure recertifications of family income and composition are performed at least once every 12 months and the tenants HAP amount and tenant utility allowance is adjusted as necessary to meet the eligibility requirements per 24 CFR sections 5.230, 5.609, 982.201 and 982.516.

New York City Department of Education (“DOE”) Finding #: 2023-001 Funding Year(s): 7/1/2021 – 8/31/2022 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies (FAL #84.010) Contract Numbers: 2R1251N01, 2R1251A01, 2R1264A01, 2R1240A01 Twenty-First Century Community Learning Centers (FAL #84.287) Contract Numbers: 2R3901A01, 2R3911A01, 2R3913A01, 2R3916A01, 2R3922A01, 2R3931A01, 2R3903A01, 2R3904A01 English Language Acquisition Grants (FAL #84.365) Contract Number: 2R4164A01 Supporting Effective Instruction State Grant (FAL #84.367) Contract Numbers: 2R2664A01 Pass-Through Agency: New York State Department of Education Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Type of Finding: Reporting Compliance Criteria: As stipulated by the New York State Education Department (“NYSED”) Fiscal Guidelines for Federal and State Grants, program recipients are required to submit to NYSED a signed copy of the Final Expenditure Report for a Federal Project (“FS-10F”) within 90 days following the end of the grant award period. Condition/Context: Of the thirty-five (35) FS-10F reports submitted by the DOE during fiscal year 2023, we selected a sample of fourteen (14) FS-10F reports and found that fourteen (14) of the reports tested were submitted after the required due date, as follows: • Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies (FAL #84.010): of the four (4) FS-10F reports tested, such reports were submitted between 23 and 160 days late. • Twenty-First Century Community Learning Centers (FAL #84.287): of the eight (8) FS-10F reports tested, such reports were submitted between 85 and 103 days late. • English Language Acquisition Grants (FAL #84.365): of the one (1) FS-10F report tested, such report was submitted 167 days late. • Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (FAL #84.367): of the one (1) FS-10F report tested, such report was submitted 169 days late. Cause/Effect: We were informed that due to open encumbrances which had not been fully liquidated by the FS-10F due date, the DOE was unable to complete and submit the FS-10F financial reports within the stipulated 90-day period, thus resulting in late-filed reports. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2022-001, included on pages 232 and 233 of the Fiscal 2022 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend the DOE consider establishing procedures and operational practices whereby disposition of open encumbrances is accelerated such that all FS-10F expenditure reports are prepared and submitted within the required 90-day timeframe.

New York City Human Resources Administration (“HRA”) Finding #: 2023-002 Funding Year(s): 10/19/2017 - 9/1/2027 HOME Investment Partnerships Program (FAL #14.239) Contract Numbers: M-17-MC-36-0204; M-18-MC-36-0204; M-19-MC-36-0204 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Type of Finding: Allowable Costs and Eligibility - Material Noncompliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: In accordance with 23 CFR sections 1.9, 172.11(a), 420.113(a), and 630.106(a), costs incurred under federal awards are considered allowable and reimbursable when such costs are deemed necessary and reasonable; incurred subsequent to the date of authorization to proceed and in accordance with the conditions contained in the project agreement and the plans specifications; and, not included as costs used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements, among other things. As stipulated by 24 CFR §92.209, tenant-based rental assistance (“TBRA”) may only be provided to very low- and low-income families. The participating jurisdiction must determine that the family is very low- or low-income before the assistance is provided. During the period of assistance, the participating jurisdiction must annually determine that the family continues to be low-income. Also, the maximum monthly assistance that a participating jurisdiction may pay to, or on behalf of, a family may not exceed the difference between a rent standard for the unit size established by the participating jurisdiction and 30% of the family's monthly adjusted income. Additionally, the participating jurisdiction must disapprove a lease if the rent is not reasonable, based on rents that are charged for comparable unassisted rental units. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of federal awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” (the “Green Book”) 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”) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: The New York City Human Resources Administration (“HRA”) utilizes the Current System to assess beneficiaries’ eligibility to receive tenant based rental assistance through the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (“HOME”). To assess eligibility, HRA program staff obtain income supporting documentation to determine if the household met the low-income requirement and to calculate the maximum subsidy amount to be paid by HRA. Additionally, a rent reasonableness valuation is performed which compares the current beneficiary’s rent to other rents charged for comparable units to ensure reasonableness. Upon the completion of the eligibility determination by an HRA staff member, a designated program supervisor reviews and approves the eligibility determination, subsidy amount, and tenant share within the Current System. We selected a non-statistical sample of forty (40) rental assistance payments made on behalf of tenants during fiscal 2023 and found that eight (8) of the selections had errors as follows: • For five (5) of the eight (8) selections, it was noted that HRA’s share of monthly rent was determined to be lower than the amounts actually paid on behalf of the tenants. For these selections, HRA’s share of monthly rent was calculated as $1,709, $1,293, $1,410, $1,078, and $1,363. However, due to manual input errors, the amounts actually paid on behalf of these tenants were $1,742, $1,320, $1,469, $1,096, and $1,521, respectively. • For three (3) of the eight (8) selections, it was noted that HRA’s share of monthly rent was determined to be higher than the amounts actually paid on behalf of the tenants. For these selections, HRA’s share of monthly rent was calculated as $2,326, $1,240, and $1,740. However, due to manual input errors, the amounts actually paid on behalf of these tenants were $2,233, $1,210, and $1,640 respectively. Total TBRA payments charged to the grant were $5,521,322 and total TBRA benefits subjected to testing were $60,087. Cause/Effect: While HRA has a process in place to assess the eligibility of tenants and calculate the monthly TBRA payments on behalf of those tenants to ensure allowability of costs incurred, a comprehensive review was not consistently performed to support those determinations and calculations. As a result, costs were incurred on behalf of certain tenants that may not have met the eligibility requirements, or an incorrect amount may have been paid on their behalf. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs totaled $296. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2022-012, included on pages 253 through 255 of the Fiscal 2022 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend that HRA strengthen their internal controls governing the eligibility determination and monthly TBRA payment calculation process, including creating a comprehensive review checklist to ensure each tenant meets every eligibility requirement and HRA’s portion of the TBRA payments are properly calculated, and that appropriate supervisory review and approval is consistently performed and documented prior to processing payments and charging costs to the grant.

New York City Department of Human Resources Administration (“HRA”) Finding #: 2023-003 Funding Year(s): 9/13/2021 – 9/12/2023 Emergency Solutions Grants Program (FAL #14.231) Contract Number: E21MC360104 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Type of Finding: Special Tests and Provisions - Compliance and Internal Control (Control Deficiency) Criteria: Per 24 CFR Section 576.203(a)(2), within 180 days after the date that HUD signs the grant agreement with the metropolitan city, urban county, or territory, the recipient must obligate all the grant amount, except the amount for its administrative costs. Total grant award obligations are required to be reported to HUD through the Integrated Disbursement and Information System (“IDIS”), using a PR-91 ESG Financial Summary Report. Condition/Context: HUD signed HRA’s Emergency Solutions Grants Program (“ESG”) grant agreement #E21MC360104 on September 13, 2021, and as such the total grant amount was required to be obligated by March 12, 2022. Per the PR-91 ESG Financial Summary Report submitted by HRA through IDIS on February 2, 2023, none of the total $14,799,420 award had been obligated by the required due date. Cause/Effect: While HRA has policies and procedures in place regarding the review and approval of the PR-91 ESG Financial Report, this process did not include a comprehensive review to ensure that HRA obligated all grant funding within the required timeframe prior to submission. As such, this resulted in HRA’s non-compliance. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2022-003, included on page 236 of the Fiscal 2022 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend that HRA strengthen their internal controls over the special tests and provisions process to ensure all grant amounts are obligated within the required 180-day timeframe, and that the obligation is properly reviewed prior to the PR-91 ESG Financial Report submission through IDIS.

New York City Human Resources Administration (“HRA”) Finding #: 2023-004 Funding Year(s): 9/13/2021 - 11/8/2026 Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) (FAL #14.241) Contract Numbers: NYH21F002; NYH22F002; NYH23F002 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Type of Finding: Special Tests and Provisions - Internal Control (Significant Deficiency) Criteria: All housing that is assisted under specific HOPWA activities per CFR sections 574.300(b) (3), (4), (5), and (8) must meet specific applicable Housing Quality Standards (“HQS”) as outlined in 24 CFR section 574.310(b) determined by on-site inspections. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of federal awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” (the “Green Book”) 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”) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: Prior to providing rental assistance to landlords, HRA conducts on-site inspections to ensure each unit meets all applicable Housing Quality Standards. During each inspection, a HRA Case Manager would assign a Quality Assurance (“QA”) Inspector to complete an inspection checklist, which outlines each standard and documents if the unit passed or failed each requirement. The QA Inspector would sign off on the report and provide it to the landlord, noting if any repairs are required. In addition to the initial annual inspection, if there were any adverse findings identified, the Case Manager would conduct follow-up visits for that unit until the findings were remediated. Landlords are required to address any deficiencies and violations found through a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) within 30 days of the receipt of the failed inspection letter. HRA would then ensure a physical inspection was conducted prior to June 30, 2023. In accordance with the individual agreements between HRA and the landlords of the units receiving the rental assistance, the landlords are responsible for maintaining compliance with the HQS, and the HRA inspections are conducted to help ensure the respective landlords are maintaining compliance. We selected a non-statistical sample of twenty-four (24) units that were subject to an initial inspection by HRA during fiscal 2023 and noted that for eight (8) selections, HRA was unable to provide a copy of the inspection checklist that was completed by the QA Inspector prior to assistance being provided for the unit. Cause/Effect: While HRA conducts monitoring procedures to help ensure that Housing Quality Standards are maintained and, when necessary, related repairs are performed by the respective landlords within the prescribed 30-day timeframe, we noted that the inspection checklists used to document such procedures were not consistently maintained. If controls aren’t in place to ensure each unit is properly inspected in accordance with the guidelines and HRA’s policies, there is a risk that some units may not meet the appropriate quality of living conditions for tenants and, therefore, not comply with the applicable Housing Quality Standards. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2022-014, included on pages 258 and 259 of the Fiscal 2022 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend that HRA strengthen their internal controls governing the Housing Quality Standards inspection process, including that appropriate documentation is maintained for each inspection performed, to ensure compliance with the requirements is met for each unit under their supervision.

New York City Human Resources Administration (“HRA”) Finding #: 2023-005 Funding Year(s): 9/13/2021 - 11/8/2026 Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) (FAL #14.241) Contract Numbers: NYH21F002; NYH22F002; NYH23F002 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Type of Finding: Eligibility - Compliance and Internal Control (Significant Deficiency) Criteria: As stipulated by 24 CFR Section 574.3, to be eligible to receive HOPWA funded benefits, a participant must be diagnosed with an acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or related diseases and be a low-income individual, as determined by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. HRA utilizes the household income of eligible participants to calculate the monthly rental assistance payment to be made on their behalf. The amount of grant funds used to pay monthly assistance for an eligible person may not exceed the difference between the lower of the rent standard or reasonable rent. Per 24 CFR 574.320(a)(2) the rent standard shall be established by the grantee and shall be no more than the published section 8 fair market rent (FMR) or the HUD-approved community-wide exception rent for the unit size. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of federal awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” (the “Green Book”) 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”) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: From a non-statistical sample of sixty-five (65) rental assistance payments made on behalf of tenants during fiscal year 2023 that were selected for testing, we identified the following: • For two (2) of the selections, HRA utilized household income that was lower than the participants’ actual income, which caused HRA’s monthly rental assistance payment for the selected period to be higher than it should have been. The excess monthly payments for these selections totaled $6. • For one (1) of the selections, the participant’s share of the monthly rent was incorrectly recorded as $660 instead of $664, which caused HRA’s monthly rental assistance payment for the selected period to be higher than it should have been. The excess payments for this selection totaled $4. Total rental assistance payments charged to the grant were $21,825,396 and total HOPWA rent subsidies subjected to testing were $83,509. Cause/Effect: While HRA has processes in place to assess the eligibility of tenants to receive HOPWA benefits and to calculate the monthly rental assistance payments to be made on their behalf, they did not consistently ensure that the inputs utilized to calculate the monthly rental assistance payment were accurate. As a result, an incorrect monthly rental assistance amount was paid on behalf of certain tenants. Questioned Costs: None noted. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2022-013, included on pages 256 and 257 of the Fiscal 2022 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend that HRA strengthen their internal controls governing the eligibility process, including ensuring all inputs utilized to calculate the monthly rental assistance amount is accurate and that the review performed to verify that each participant’s rent is not above the FMR limit is appropriately documented, prior to processing payments and charging costs to the grant.

New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (“HPD”) Finding #: 2023-006 Funding Year(s): 10/19/2017 - 09/01/2029 HOME Investment Partnership Program (FAL #14.239) Contract Number: M-17-MC-36-0204; M-18-MC-36-0204; M-19-MC-36-0204; M-20-MC-36-0204, M-21-MC-36-0204 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Type of Finding: Special Tests and Provisions Compliance Criteria: During the period of affordability for which the non-federal entity must maintain subsidized housing for the HOME-assisted rental housing program, the participating jurisdiction must perform on-site inspections at least once every three (3) years to determine compliance with Housing Quality Standards (24 CFR sections 92.209(i), 92.251(f), and 92.504(d)). Furthermore, for any failed inspections, the appropriate repairs to bring the building into compliance must be performed timely. Condition/Context: HPD has policies and procedures in place to identify units which require Housing Quality Standards inspections and performs inspections of these units to help ensure that any needed repairs are completed within the stipulated timeframe. For those units in need of repairs, HPD’s policy requires that repairs be completed within 90 days after the initial inspection and supported by a Certificate of Repairs form. In accordance with the individual agreements between HPD and the Sponsors of the respective housing projects, the Sponsors are responsible for maintaining compliance with the Housing Quality Standards, and HPD inspections are conducted to help ensure the respective Sponsors are maintaining compliance. Additionally, there are clauses within the individual agreements between HPD and the Sponsor which allows HPD to exercise remedies such as restricting funding to Sponsors who do not comply with the Housing Quality Standards. Our procedures identified six (6) instances from a sample of forty (40), where the necessary repairs were not made by the Sponsors within the stipulated 90-day period. Cause/Effect: While HPD conducts monitoring procedures to help ensure that Housing Quality Standards are maintained and, when necessary, related repairs are performed by the respective Sponsors within the prescribed 90-day timeframe, we noted that the necessary repairs were not consistently completed within the stipulated timeframe or not completed at all. Incomplete and/or repairs that do not meet the stipulated completion timeframe could result in Sponsored projects not maintaining the appropriate quality of living conditions for tenants and, therefore, not comply with the applicable Housing Quality Standards. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2022-008, included on pages 243 and 244 of the Fiscal 2022 Single Audit report.   Recommendation: While contract provisions between HPD and the respective Sponsors permit HPD to exercise remedies, which may include the withdrawal of future funding, HPD did not elect to exercise any such remedies. Accordingly, we recommend that HPD continue to strengthen its monitoring of Sponsors in connection with housing quality inspections and determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether to exercise appropriate remedies in accordance with contract provisions or consider documenting its rationale for not doing so.

Administration for Children’s Services (“ACS”) Finding #: 2023-007 Funding Year(s): 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2028 Foster Care – Title IV - E (FAL #93.658) Contract Numbers: 1901NYFOST, 2001NYFOST, 2301NYFOST Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Type of Finding: Eligibility - Compliance and Internal Control (Significant Deficiency) Criteria: A child’s removal from the home (unless removal is pursuant to a voluntary placement agreement) must be in accordance with a judicial determination to the effect that continuation in the home would be contrary to the child’s welfare, or that placement in foster care would be in the best interest of the child. The judicial determination must be explicitly stated in the court order and made on a case-by-case basis. The precise language “contrary to the welfare” does not have to be included in the removal court order, but the order must include language to the effect that remaining in the home will be contrary to the child’s welfare, safety, or best interest (45 CFR section 1356.21(c)). The judicial determination of contrary to the welfare must be in the first court ruling that sanctions the child’s removal from home (45 CFR section 1356.21(c)). Acceptable documentation is a court order containing a judicial determination regarding contrary to the welfare or a transcript of the court proceedings reflecting this determination (45 CFR section 1356.21(d)). Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of federal awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” (the “Green Book”) 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”) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: The New York City Administration for Children’s Services (“ACS”) utilizes an eligibility checklist mandated by the State of New York (“NY State”) to assess beneficiaries’ eligibility to receive benefits through the Foster Care program. Upon the completion of the eligibility checklist by an ACS staff member, ACS’ policies and procedures require that a designated supervisor review and approve the checklist prior to ACS determining a child to be IV-E eligible. From a non-statistical sample of forty (40) eligibility files subject to testing, we identified one (1) eligibility redetermination checklist that did not include evidence of the required approval by a supervisor and two (2) redetermination checklists with untimely approval by a supervisor. In addition, those same two (2) files did not contain a copy of the court order until a year after the judicial finding was made. Cause/Effect: While ACS has established policies and procedures to help ensure eligibility requirements are met, we noted the appropriate reviews were not consistently performed, which could result in an ineligible individual receiving benefits. However, with respect to the forty (40) sampled files referred to above, ACS personnel were able to demonstrate that all such individuals were in fact eligible for Foster Care benefits, and accordingly, program eligibility requirements were satisfied for these sampled files. Questioned Costs: None noted. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that ACS strengthen controls over the foster care eligibility process to ensure the appropriate supervisory review and approval is consistently performed.

New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (“DOHMH”) Finding #: 2023-008 Funding Year(s): 8/1/2019 - 7/31/2024 Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Diseases (ELC) (FAL #93.323) Contract Number: 5 NU50CK000517, 6 NU50CK000517 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Type of Finding: Reporting – Internal Control (Significant Deficiency) Criteria: In accordance with the U.S Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) Grants Policy Statement, reports of expenditures are required as documentation of the financial status of grants according to the official accounting records of the recipient. Financial or expenditure reporting is accomplished using the Financial Status Report (“FSR”) (SF 269 or SF 269A). The FSR is required annually, and the report must be submitted for each budget period no later than 90 days after the close of the budget period or applicable 12-month period. Additionally, special reports are required by the terms and conditions of the federal awards. As stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of federal awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” (the “Green Book”) 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”) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: From a non-statistical sample of four (4) annual FSRs subject to testing, we identified one (1) FSR that was submitted after the required reporting deadline of within 90 days following the end of the budget period. In addition, we selected a non-statistical sample of twenty-four (24) special performance reports required to be filed. While the reports were prepared and submitted promptly in accordance with the reporting deadlines, for all twenty-four (24) selections, DOHMH was unable to provide supporting documentation that a review was performed to verify that the performance report was accurately prepared and submitted. Cause/Effect: While DOHMH has established policies and procedures to ensure that the required reports are accurately completed and submitted on a timely basis, we noted the appropriate reviews were not consistently performed and documented for both financial and performance reporting thus resulting in one (1) FSR that was submitted after the required reporting deadline of within 90 days following the end of the budget period. Questioned Costs: None noted. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that DOHMH strengthen their internal controls over the reporting process to include documented review and approval all financial and special performance reports prior to submission within the required timeframe.

New York City Department of Investigation (“DOI”) Finding #: 2023-009 Funding Year(s): 7/1/2022 – 6/30/2023 Equitable Sharing Program (FAL #16.922) Contract Numbers: N/A Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Justice Type of Finding: Equipment and Real Property Management - Compliance and Internal Control (Significant Deficiency) Criteria: As stipulated by 2 CFR section 200.313(d)(2), a physical inventory of property and equipment acquired under a federal award must be taken, and the results reconciled with the property records, at least once every two years. Also, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of federal awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” (the “Green Book”) 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”) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: From a non-statistical sample of forty (40) pieces of equipment subjected to testing, DOI was unable to provide supporting documentation for two (2) of the selections, that a review and approval of the inventory had taken place at the time the inventory was conducted. Cause/Effect: While DOI had certain procedures in place to monitor their equipment purchased with federal funding, such procedures were not adequate to ensure that each aspect of the equipment and real property management compliance requirements were performed and documented within the requirement timeframe, which resulted in the findings noted above. Without the appropriate internal controls and monitoring procedures in place, federally funded equipment could be inaccurately recorded on inventory records and not discovered and corrected timely, inventory could be misplaced, misappropriated, or otherwise disposed of outside of the requirements of the federal guidelines Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2022-009, included on pages 245 through 247 of the Fiscal 2022 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend that DOI strengthen controls over the inventory process to ensure biennial inventory counts are consistently performed over all equipment within the required timeframe, and that the review and approval of each inventory performed is appropriately documented.

New York City Department for the Aging (“DFTA”) Finding #: 2023-010 Funding Year(s): 07/01/2022 - 06/30/2023 New York City Department for the Aging: Aging Cluster (FAL #93.044, 93.045 & 93.053) Contract Number: N/A Pass-Through Agency: New York State Office for the Aging Type of Finding: Subrecipient Monitoring Compliance and Internal Control (Significant Deficiency) Criteria: As stipulated in 2 CFR 200.332(f) pass-through entities should verify that every subrecipient that expends $750,000 or more in federal awards during their fiscal year has a single or program-specific audit conducted for that fiscal year in accordance with 2 CFR 200.501. Additionally, per 2 CFR 200.512(a)(1) the audit must be completed and the data collection form along with the reporting package must be submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse within the earlier of 30 calendar days after receipt of the auditor’s report(s), or nine months after the end of the audit period. Condition/Context: Of the forty (40) subrecipients under the Aging Cluster that were selected for testing, four (4) of the single audit report dates were beyond the nine-month required submission date required by 2 CFR 200.512(a)(1). For these four (4) selections, DFTA was unable to provide supporting documentation of notification by the subrecipient of the late submission and acknowledgment of the notification by DFTA. Cause/Effect: While DFTA has established subrecipient monitoring procedures, we noted that monitoring of subrecipient compliance with federal statues, regulations and terms and conditions of the federal award were not consistently performed and documented. Missing or incomplete monitoring procedures could result in subrecipients not complying with Uniform Guidance reporting and/or other program specific compliance requirements. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that DFTA create a comprehensive internal control structure which ensures that all subrecipient compliance requirements stipulated by 2 CFR 200.332 are being met, including following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the federal award provided to the subrecipient detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient.

New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) Finding #: 2023-011 Funding Year(s): 9/1/2018 - 8/31/2025 Port Security Grant Program (FAL #97.056) Contract Number(s): EMW-2018-PU-00123-S01, EMW-2019-PU-00316-S01, EMW-2020-PU-00278-S01, EMW-2021-PU-00321-S01, EMW-2022-PU-00311-S01 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Type of Finding: Equipment and Real Property Management - Compliance and Internal Control (Control Deficiency) Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR section 200.313(d)(1), property records must be maintained that include a description of the property, a serial number or other identification number, the source of funding for the property (including the FAIN), who holds title, the acquisition date, and cost of the property, percentage of federal participation in the project costs for the federal award under which the property was acquired, the location, use and condition of the property, and any ultimate disposition data including the date of disposal and sale price of the property. Condition/Context: The New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) utilizes the City’s Grants Tracking System (“GTS”), a citywide web-based inventory program, designed to standardize the tracking of federally funded equipment. Further, NYPD Command-designated grants coordinators are responsible for monitoring the equipment and updating the inventory on a periodic basis in accordance with federal guidelines. The NYPD Grants Unit periodically generates an inventory listing from GTS that includes the biennial inventory count due date for each item and distributes it to the assigned NYPD Command designated grant coordinators to ensure the inventory count is conducted timely and in accordance with federal requirements. After the completion of biennial inventory count, the NYPD Command-designated grants coordinators update the inventory count information to GTS. From a non-statistical sample of twenty (20) pieces of equipment subjected to testing, we identified one (1) piece of equipment that was disposed of prior to the most recent inventory count, but the equipment was not removed from the active inventory listing. Cause/Effect: While NYPD had certain procedures in place to monitor their equipment purchased with federal funding, such procedures were not adequate to ensure that each aspect of the equipment and real property management compliance requirements were performed and documented within the required timeframe, which resulted in the finding noted above. Without the appropriate internal controls and monitoring procedures in place, federally funded equipment could be inaccurately recorded on inventory records and not discovered and corrected timely, inventory could be misplaced, misappropriated, or otherwise disposed of outside of the requirements of the federal guidelines. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that NYPD strengthen controls over the inventory process to ensure dispositions of equipment are updated in the equipment records.

New York City Fire Department (“FDNY”) Finding #: 2023-012 Funding Year(s): 9/1/2018 - 8/31/2024 Port Security Grant Program (FAL #97.056) Contract Number(s): EMW-2018-PU-00004-S01, EMW-2020-PU-00020-S01, EMW-2021-PU-00015-S01, EMW-2019-PU-00013-S01 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Type of Finding: Equipment and Real Property Management - Compliance and Internal Control (Significant Deficiency) Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR section 200.313(d)(1), property records must be maintained that include a description of the property, a serial number or other identification number, the source of funding for the property (including the FAIN), who holds title, the acquisition date, and cost of the property, percentage of federal participation in the project costs for the federal award under which the property was acquired, the location, use and condition of the property, and any ultimate disposition data including the date of disposal and sale price of the property. Condition/Context: The New York City Fire Department (“FDNY”) utilizes the City’s Grants Tracking System (“GTS”), a citywide web-based inventory program, designed to standardize the tracking of federally funded equipment. Further, FDNY Command-designated grants coordinators are responsible for monitoring the equipment and updating the inventory on a periodic basis in accordance with federal guidelines. The FDNY Grants Unit periodically generates an inventory listing from GTS that includes the biennial inventory count due date for each item and distributes it to the assigned FDNY Command designated grant coordinators to ensure the inventory count is conducted timely and in accordance with federal requirements. After the completion of biennial inventory count, the FDNY Command-designated grants coordinators update the inventory count information to GTS. From a non-statistical sample of twenty (20) pieces of equipment subjected to testing, we identified three (3) pieces of equipment that were disposed of prior to the most recent inventory count but the equipment was not removed from the active inventory listing. Cause/Effect: While FDNY had certain procedures in place to monitor their equipment purchased with federal funding, such procedures were not adequate to ensure that each aspect of the equipment and real property management compliance requirements were consistently performed and documented, which resulted in the findings noted above. Without the appropriate internal controls and monitoring procedures in place, federally funded equipment could be inaccurately recorded on inventory records and not discovered and corrected timely, inventory could be misplaced, misappropriated, or otherwise disposed of outside of the requirements of the federal guidelines Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that FDNY strengthen controls over the inventory process to ensure dispositions of equipment are updated in the equipment records, inventories performed are reconciled back to equipment records, and biennial inventory counts are consistently performed for all equipment within the required timeframe.

Administration for Children’s Services (“ACS”) and New York City Human Resources Administration (“HRA”) Finding #: 2023-013 Funding Year(s): 10/1/2021 - 9/30/2023 CCDF Cluster: Child Care and Development Block Grant (FAL #93.575) Contract Numbers: 22-OCFS-LCM-08, 23-OCFS-LCM-12-R1 Pass-Through Agency: NYS Office of Children and Family Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Type of Finding: Eligibility - Material Noncompliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: As stipulated by the 45 CFR Part 98 Subpart C, to be eligible for services under the Child Care and Development Block Grant (“CCDBG”), a child shall (1) be under the age of thirteen (13) years of age or be under the age of nineteen (19) and physically or mentally incapable of caring for himself or herself; (2) Reside with a family whose income does not exceed 85 percent of the State's median income (SMI) and whose family assets do not exceed $1,000,000; and (3) reside with a parent or parents who are working or attending a job training or educational program; or receive, or need to receive, protective services. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of federal awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” (the “Green Book”) 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”) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: We selected a non-statistical sample of forty (40) individuals who received services under CCDBG during fiscal year 2023 and found that five (5) of the individuals tested had errors as follows: • One (1) of the individuals tested from HRA did not meet some or all of the eligibility criteria as stipulated in 45 CFR Part 98 Subpart C; • For four (4) of the individuals, HRA was not able to provide documentation to support that the individual met all the eligibility criteria as stipulated in 45 CFR Part 98 Subpart C; and, Total CCDBG Benefits charged to the grant were $532,211,608 and total CCDBG benefits subjected to testing were $37,776. Cause/Effect: While ACS and HRA have a process in place to assess the eligibility of children, a comprehensive review was not consistently performed and documented to ensure the appropriate evidence and related approvals were maintained to support those determinations. As a result, costs were incurred on behalf of certain children that did not meet all of the eligibility requirements or were not supported by appropriate documentation.   Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $520. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2022-015, included on pages 260 and 261 of the Fiscal 2022 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend that ACS and HRA strengthen their internal controls governing the eligibility requirements, including implementing a review checklist to ensure the child meets every eligibility requirement per 45 CFR Part 98 Subpart C during the eligibility determination process.

New York City Housing Preservation & Development (“HPD”) Finding #: 2023-014 Funding Year(s): 7/1/2022 – 6/30/2023 Section 8 Project-Based Cluster: Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy (FAL #14.249) Lower Income Housing Assistance Program – Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation (FAL #14.856) Contract Numbers: N/A Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Type of Finding: Eligibility and Special Tests and Provisions - Material Noncompliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: As stipulated by 24 CFR Section 880.603, prior to providing housing assistance payments (HAP) to participants, HPD must verify the eligibility of applicants by (a) obtaining signed applications; (b) conducting verifications of family income and other pertinent information; (c) documenting inspections and tenant certifications, as appropriate; and, (d) determining that tenant income did not exceed the maximum limit set by HUD. HPD must also reexamine family income and composition for each tenant at least once every 12 months to verify continued eligibility and adjust the HAP amount, as necessary. Further, HPD must maintain an up-to-date utility allowance schedule and establish procedures to properly apply the updated utility allowances to each tenant’s HAP calculations as part of the annual reexamination process. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of Federal Awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” (the “Green Book”) 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”) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: To assess eligibility, HPD’s policy is to conduct annual recertifications of family income and composition. As part of that process, HPD sends a recertification package to the head of household, which contains documentation that the tenant must complete for verification purposes. HPD then analyzes and verifies all information included in the recertification package to determine if the tenant is eligible to continue to receive HAPs and adjust the tenant rent and HAP amounts as necessary for the following 12-month period. We selected a non-statistical sample of forty (40) tenants who received HAPs under the Section 8 Project-Based Cluster during fiscal year 2023. For twenty-five (25) of the tenants tested, HPD was not able to provide documentation to support that an eligibility recertification for the tenant, including a review of the utility allowance and HAP calculation, was performed within the previous 12 months, as required. Cause/Effect: While HPD has a process in place to assess the eligibility of tenants receiving HAPs under the Section 8 Project-Based Cluster, the reexamination of family income and composition and utility allowance was not consistently performed for each tenant at least once every 12 months to support the tenant’s continued eligibility to receive benefits through this program at the appropriate amounts. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that HPD strengthen their internal controls governing the eligibility requirements, including implementing a control to ensure recertifications of family income and composition are performed at least once every 12 months and the tenants HAP amount and tenant utility allowance is adjusted as necessary to meet the eligibility requirements per 24 CFR sections 880.603, 881.601, 882.514, 882.808, 833.701, 884.214, 886.119, and 886.318.

New York City Housing Preservation & Development (“HPD”) Finding #: 2023-015 Funding Year(s): 7/1/2022 – 6/30/2023 Section 8 Project-Based Cluster: Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy (FAL #14.249) Lower Income Housing Assistance Program – Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation (FAL #14.856) Contract Numbers: N/A Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Type of Finding: Special Tests and Provisions - Material Noncompliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: Per 24 CFR Section 5.705, a property must be inspected and meet specific Housing Quality Standards (“HQS”) before the property is approved for participation in any of the HUD housing programs. As stipulated in 24 CFR 882.516, in addition to the inspections required prior to the execution of the contract, HPD must inspect contract units at least annually, and at such other times as may be necessary to assure that the owner is meeting the obligations to maintain the units and provide the agreed upon utilities and other services. Further, as per HUD regulation 24 CFR 982.404(a)(3), for any failed inspections, HPD is required to verify that the HQS failure items have been repaired to bring the unit into compliance within 30 days. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of Federal Awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” (the “Green Book”) 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”) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: HPD has policies and procedures in place to identify units which require HQS inspections and performs inspections of these units to help ensure that any needed repairs are completed within the stipulated timeframe. For those units in need of repairs, HPD’s policy requires that those repairs be completed within thirty (30) days after the initial inspection. From a non-statistical sample of forty (40) units that were selected for testing, we identified the following: • For thirty-three (33) of the units tested, HPD was not able to provide documentation to support that an HQS inspection was performed for the unit under contract within the previous 12 months, as required. • For eight (8) of the tenants tested where the unit under contract failed to meet HQS standards, HPD was not able to provide documentation to support that HPD verified the correction of the failed items through reinspection or alternative means. Cause/Effect: While HPD has a process in place to perform periodic HQS inspections for the units under contract that are part of the Section 8 Project-Based Cluster, a HQS inspection was not consistently performed at least once every 12 months to support that the owner is meeting the obligations to maintain the units and provide the agreed upon utilities and other services, as required. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that HPD strengthen their internal controls governing the HQS inspection requirements, including implementing controls to ensure inspections are performed annually for each unit under contract, and for any failed inspections, to verify that the HQS failure items have been repaired to bring the unit into compliance within thirty (30) days, as required.

New York City Housing Preservation & Development (“HPD”) Finding #: 2023-016 Funding Year(s): 7/1/2022 – 6/30/2023 Housing Voucher Cluster: Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (FAL #14.871) Contract Numbers: N/A Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Type of Finding: Eligibility and Special Tests and Provisions - Material Noncompliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: As stipulated by 24 CFR Section 982.201, prior to providing housing assistance payments (HAP) to participants, HPD must verify the eligibility of applicants based on their family income and composition. Per 24 CFR section 982.516, HPD must also reexamine family income and composition for each tenant at least once every 12 months to verify continued eligibility and adjust the HAP amount, as necessary. Further, as stipulated by 24 CFR Section 982.517, HPD must maintain an up-to-date utility allowance schedule and establish procedures to properly apply the updated utility allowances to each tenant’s HAP calculations as part of the annual reexamination process. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of Federal Awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” (the “Green Book”) 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”) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: To assess eligibility, HPD’s policy is to conduct annual recertifications of family income and composition. As part of that process, HPD sends a recertification package to the head of household, which contains documentation that the tenant must complete for verification purposes. HPD then analyzes and verifies all information included in the recertification package to determine if the tenant is eligible to continue to receive HAPs and adjust the tenant rent and HAP amounts as necessary for the following 12-month period. We selected a non-statistical sample of forty (40) tenants who received HAPs under the Housing Voucher Cluster during fiscal year 2023. For eighteen (18) of the tenants tested, HPD was not able to provide documentation to support that an eligibility recertification for the tenant, including a review of the utility allowance and HAP calculation, was performed within the previous 12 months, as required. Cause/Effect: While HPD has a process in place to assess the eligibility of tenants receiving HAPs under the Housing Voucher Cluster, the reexamination of family income and composition and utility allowance was not consistently performed at least once every 12 months to support the tenant’s continued eligibility to receive benefits through this program at the appropriate amounts. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that HPD strengthen their internal controls governing the eligibility requirements, including implementing a control to ensure recertifications of family income and composition are performed at least once every 12 months and the tenants HAP amount and tenant utility allowance is adjusted as necessary to meet the eligibility requirements per 24 CFR sections 5.230, 5.609, 982.201 and 982.516.

New York City Department of Education (?DOE?) Finding #: 2022-001 Funding Year(s): 9/1/2020 ? 8/31/2022 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies (FAL #84.010) Contract Numbers: 1R4551J01, 1R4551M01, 1R4510M01, 1R4511L01, 1R4519F01 Career & Technical Education - Basic Grants to States (FAL #84.048) Contract Numbers: 1R0551A01, 1R0579A01 Twenty-First Century Community Learning Centers (FAL #84.287) Contract Numbers: 1R3902A01, 1R3907A01, 1R3912A01, 1R3918A01, 1R3920A01, 1R3930A01, 1R3903A01, 1R3925A01 English Language Acquisition Grants (FAL #84.365) Contract Number: 1R4142A01, 1R4151A01, 1R4164A01 Supporting Effective Instruction State Grant (FAL #84.367) Contract Numbers: 1R2664A01 Student Support and Academic Enrichment (FAL #84.424) Contract Numbers: 1R1951A01, 1R1951B01 Pass-Through Agency: New York State Department of Education Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Type of Finding: Reporting Compliance Criteria: As stipulated by the New York State Education Department (?NYSED?) Fiscal Guidelines for Federal and State Grants, program recipients are required to submit to NYSED a signed copy of the Final Expenditure Report for a Federal Project (?FS-10F?) within 90 days following the end of the grant award period. Condition/Context: Of the sixty-six (66) FS-10F reports submitted by the DOE during fiscal year 2022, we selected a sample of twenty-six (26) FS-10F reports and found that twenty-one (21) of the reports tested were submitted after the required due date, as follows: ? Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies (FAL #84.010): of the nine (9) FS-10F reports tested, five (5) reports were submitted between 70 and 126 days late. ? Career & Technical Education - Basic Grants to States (FAL #84.048): of the two (2) FS-10F reports tested, such reports were submitted between 21 and 43 days late. ? Twenty-First Century Community Learning Centers (FAL #84.287): of the eight (8) FS-10F reports tested, such reports were submitted between 3 and 36 days late. ? English Language Acquisition Grants (FAL #84.365): of the three (3) FS-10F reports tested, such reports were submitted between 70 and 123 days late. ? Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (FAL #84.367): of the two (2) FS-10F reports tested, one (1) report was submitted 123 days late. ? Student Support and Academic Enrichment (FAL #84.424): of the two (2) FS-10F reports tested, such reports were submitted between 112 and 123 days late. Cause/Effect: We were informed that due to open encumbrances which had not been fully liquidated by the FS-10F due date, the DOE was unable to complete and submit the FS-10F financial reports within the stipulated 90-day period, thus resulting in late-filed reports. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2021-001, included on pages 228 and 229 of the Fiscal 2021 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend the DOE consider establishing procedures and operational practices whereby disposition of open encumbrances is accelerated such that all FS-10F expenditure reports are prepared and submitted within the required 90-day timeframe.

Finding #: 2022-002 Funding Year(s): 7/1/2021-6/30/2022 Port Security Grant Program (FAL #97.056) Contract Number: EMW-2015-PU-APP-00314, EMW-2017-PU-00122 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Type of Finding: Equipment and Real Property Management - Compliance and Internal Control (Control Deficiency) Criteria: As stipulated by 2 CFR sections 200.313(d)(2), a physical inventory of property and equipment acquired under a federal award must be taken, and the results reconciled with the property records, at least once every two years. Condition/Context: The New York City Police Department (?NYPD?) utilizes the City?s Grants Tracking System (?GTS?), a citywide web-based inventory program, designed to standardize the tracking of federally funded equipment. Further, NYPD Command-designated grants coordinators are responsible for monitoring the equipment and updating the inventory on a periodic basis in accordance with federal guidelines. The NYPD Grants Unit periodically generates an inventory listing from GTS that includes the biennial inventory count due date for each item and distributes it to the assigned NYPD Command designated grant coordinators to ensure the inventory count is conducted timely and in accordance with federal requirements. After the completion of biennial inventory count, the NYPD Command-designated grants coordinators update the inventory count information to GTS. From a haphazard sample of twenty (20) pieces of equipment subjected to testing, we identified three (3) items where the NYPD Command-designated grants coordinators were unable to support that a physical inventory count was conducted within the required two-year period as of June 30, 2022. Cause/Effect: During 2021, the Grants Tracking System was upgraded and the most recent inventory entry and the original acquisition information were migrated to the new system. However, inventory entries performed between acquisition and the most recent inventory entry were not migrated. As per the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the citywide GTS is the record for all grant-related inventory information. The NYPD does not maintain a separate inventory tracking mechanism. As a result, NYPD could not provide documentation that they complied with 2 CFR sections 200.313(d)(2) as of year-end for three (3) pieces of equipment selected. Inventory counts that are not completed within the required timeframe could result in federally funded equipment being inaccurately recorded on the inventory records and not discovered and corrected timely. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2021-003 included on pages 232 through 233 of the Fiscal 2021 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend that NYPD strengthen controls over the inventory process to ensure biennial inventory counts for all equipment are consistently performed and documented within the required timeframe, and that such documentation is properly maintained.

New York City Department of Human Resources Administration (?HRA?) Finding #: 2022-003 Funding Year(s): 1/22/2021 ? 1/21/2023 Emergency Solutions Grants Program (FAL #14.231) Contract Number: E20MC360104 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Type of Finding: Special Tests and Provisions - Compliance and Internal Control (Control Deficiency) Criteria: Per 24 CFR Section 576.203(a)(2), within 180 days after the date that HUD signs the grant agreement with the metropolitan city, urban county, or territory, the recipient must obligate all the grant amount, except the amount for its administrative costs. Total grant award obligations are required to be reported to HUD through the Integrated Disbursement and Information System (?IDIS?), using a PR-91 ESG Financial Summary Report. Condition/Context: HUD signed HRA?s Emergency Solutions Grants Program (?ESG?) grant agreement #E20MC360104 on January 21, 2021, and as such the total grant amount was required to be obligated by July 20, 2021. Per the PR-91 ESG Financial Summary Report submitted by HRA through IDIS on October 12, 2021, $202,222 of the total $14,657,037 award had not been obligated by the required due date. Cause/Effect: While HRA has policies and procedures in place regarding the review and approval of the PR-91 ESG Financial Report, this process did not include a comprehensive review to ensure that HRA obligated all grant funding within the required timeframe prior to submission. As such, this resulted in HRA?s non-compliance. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that HRA strengthen their internal controls over the special tests and provisions process to ensure all grant amounts are obligated within the required 180-day timeframe, and that the obligation is properly reviewed prior to the PR-91 ESG Financial Report submission through IDIS.

New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene ("DOHMH") Finding #: 2022-004 Funding Year(s): 8/1/2020 ? 7/31/2025 HIV Prevention Activities ? Health Department Based (FAL #93.940) Contract Number: 20NU62PS924626 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Type of Finding: Reporting - Compliance and Internal Control (Control Deficiency) Criteria: Under the requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (?FFATA?) (Pub. L. No. 109-282), as amended by Section 6202 of Pub. L. No. 110-252, hereafter referred as the ?Transparency Act? that are codified in 2 CFR Part 170, recipients (i.e., direct recipients) of grants or cooperative agreements are required to report first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Subaward Reporting System (FSRS). The award information must be reported in FSRS no later than the last day of the month following the month in which the subaward/subaward amendment obligation was made or the subcontract award/subcontract modification was made. Condition/Context: During fiscal year 2022, HIV Prevention Activities awarded a total of two (2) sub-awards that exceeded $30,000 to one (1) subrecipient. Refer to the table below for results of our testing. Cause/Effect: While DOHMH has established policies and procedures to ensure that the required reports are accurately completed and submitted on a timely basis, we noted oversight on the timely reporting for the subawards. This resulted in DOHMH missing the filing window and failing to submit its subawards in the FSRS system within the stipulated reporting period, no later than the last day of the month following the month in which the subaward/subaward amendment obligation was made or the subcontract award/subcontract modification was made. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that DOHMH strengthen their internal controls over the reporting process to ensure all FFATA reports are submitted within the required timeframe.

New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (?DOHMH?) Finding #: 2022-005 Funding Year(s): 8/1/2020 - 12/31/2022 HIV Prevention Activities ? Health Department Based (FAL #93.940) Contract Numbers: 5 NU62PS924575-04-00; 5 NU62PS924575-05-00; 1NU62PS924626-01-00; 6NU62PS924626-02-01 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Type of Finding: Subrecipient Monitoring - Compliance and Internal Control (Significant Deficiency) Criteria: The subrecipient monitoring requirements of 2 CFR 200.332(d) stipulate that pass-through entities must monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals. Condition/Context: During fiscal 2022, DOHMH passed through federal funding to one subrecipient. We selected this subrecipient for testing and noted that DOHMH did not perform any of the required monitoring procedures in accordance with 2 CFR 200.332(d). Cause/Effect: While DOHMH has established procedures to comply with certain aspects of the subrecipient monitoring compliance requirements, such procedures did not include performing on-site reviews or similar alternate procedures that would allow DOHMH to properly oversee and evaluate the subrecipients? compliance with the requirements of the subaward. Without proper monitoring procedures, DOHMH may not have the appropriate amount of information to ensure the subrecipient is being used in accordance with Federal guidelines and the terms of the subaward. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that DOHMH create a comprehensive internal control structure which ensures that all subrecipient compliance requirements are being met, including performing appropriate monitoring procedures to ensure each subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves the performance goals of the subaward.

New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene ("DOHMH") Finding #: 2022-006 Funding Year(s): 7/1/2021 ? 6/30/2022 Public Health Emergency Preparedness (FAL #93.069) Contract Numbers: NU90TP922035 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Type of Finding: Level of Effort ? Compliance and Internal Control (Control Deficiency) Criteria: The 2 CFR section 200.514(d)(3) states that for those federal programs not covered in the compliance supplement the auditor must use the types of compliance requirements contained and described in Part 3 of the compliance supplement as guidance for identifying the types of compliance requirements to test, and determine the requirements governing the federal program by reviewing the provisions of the federal award or pass-through agency sub-award, and the laws and regulations referred in such awards. As stipulated by Public Health Solutions ("PHS"), the pass-through agency, in its sub-award agreement, Awardees must maintain non-federal expenditures for health-care preparedness and public health security at a level that is not less than the average level of such non-federal expenditures maintained by the awardee for the preceding two-year (2) period. Condition/Context: We noted that total Public Health Emergency Preparedness (?PHEP?) non-federal expenditures for the current year were below the average level of non-federal expenditures for the preceding two-year (2) period. Non-federal expenditures to the program for FY2022 totaled $2,091,743; whereas the average non-federal expenditures for FY2020 & FY2021 totaled $2,482,528. Cause/Effect: While DOHMH has a process in place to track and calculate non-federal expenditures for health-care preparedness and public health security, they did not consistently ensure progressive non-federal expenditures were adequately meeting the appropriate level of effort requirements. As a result, total programmatic non-federal expenditures for the year totaled less than the level of effort requirement. Questioned Costs: None identified Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding Recommendation: We recommend that DOHMH strengthen their internal controls regarding compliance surrounding the level of effort requirements, including the appropriate tracking of progressive non-federal expenditures to ensure programmatic level of effort requirements are met. Finding #: 2022-006 Funding Year(s): 7/1/2021 ? 6/30/2022 Public Health Emergency Preparedness (FAL #93.069) Contract Numbers: NU90TP922035 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Type of Finding: Level of Effort ? Compliance and Internal Control (Control Deficiency) Criteria: The 2 CFR section 200.514(d)(3) states that for those federal programs not covered in the compliance supplement the auditor must use the types of compliance requirements contained and described in Part 3 of the compliance supplement as guidance for identifying the types of compliance requirements to test, and determine the requirements governing the federal program by reviewing the provisions of the federal award or pass-through agency sub-award, and the laws and regulations referred in such awards. As stipulated by Public Health Solutions ("PHS"), the pass-through agency, in its sub-award agreement, Awardees must maintain non-federal expenditures for health-care preparedness and public health security at a level that is not less than the average level of such non-federal expenditures maintained by the awardee for the preceding two-year (2) period. Condition/Context: We noted that total Public Health Emergency Preparedness (?PHEP?) non-federal expenditures for the current year were below the average level of non-federal expenditures for the preceding two-year (2) period. Non-federal expenditures to the program for FY2022 totaled $2,091,743; whereas the average non-federal expenditures for FY2020 & FY2021 totaled $2,482,528. Cause/Effect: While DOHMH has a process in place to track and calculate non-federal expenditures for health-care preparedness and public health security, they did not consistently ensure progressive non-federal expenditures were adequately meeting the appropriate level of effort requirements. As a result, total programmatic non-federal expenditures for the year totaled less than the level of effort requirement. Questioned Costs: None identified Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding Recommendation: We recommend that DOHMH strengthen their internal controls regarding compliance surrounding the level of effort requirements, including the appropriate tracking of progressive non-federal expenditures to ensure programmatic level of effort requirements are met.

New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene ("DOHMH") Finding #: 2022-007 Funding Year(s): 4/1/2021 ? 3/31/2022 Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) (FAL #14.241) Contract Number: NYH21F002 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Type of Finding: Reporting ? Material Noncompliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: Under the requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (?FFATA?) (Pub. L. No. 109-282), as amended by Section 6202 of Pub. L. No. 110-252 (the ?Transparency Act?) that are codified in 2 CFR Part 170, recipients (i.e., direct recipients) of grants or cooperative agreements are required to report first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Subaward Reporting System (FSRS). The award information must be reported in FSRS no later than the last day of the month following the month in which the subaward/subaward amendment obligation was made or the subcontract award/subcontract modification was made. Condition/Context: During fiscal year 2022, DOHMH awarded a total of four (4) sub-awards that exceeded $30,000 to three (3) separate subrecipients. We noted that none of these sub-awards were reported in the FSRS system. Cause/Effect: While DOHMH has processes in place to ensure the SAM (System for Award Management) registrations for grant awards are registered under the correct entity, during fiscal 2022, due to management oversite, the SAM registration for this program was not properly processed. The HOPWA agreement was registered under The City of New York, rather than DOHMH, which resulted in DOHMH?s inability to submit information to the FSRS system for FFATA reporting, and therefore, they did not submit any of the required reports related to their fiscal 2022 HOPWA awards. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that DOHMH strengthen their processes and internal controls over reporting to ensure all FFATA reports are submitted within the required timeframe, including ensuring that the SAM registration process is completed properly under the correct City agency.

New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (?HPD?) Finding #: 2022-008 Funding Year(s): 12/18/2018 - 09/01/2027 HOME Investment Partnership Program (FAL #14.239) Contract Number: M-18-MC-36-0204; M-19-MC-36-0204 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Type of Finding: Special Tests and Provisions Compliance Criteria: During the period of affordability for which the non-Federal entity must maintain subsidized housing for the HOME-assisted rental housing program, the participating jurisdiction must perform on-site inspections at least once every three (3) years to determine compliance with Housing Quality Standards (24 CFR sections 92.209(i), 92.251(f), and 92.504(d)). Furthermore, for any failed inspections, the appropriate repairs to bring the building into compliance must be performed timely. Condition/Context: HPD has policies and procedures in place to identify units which require Housing Quality Standards inspections and performs inspections of these units to help ensure that any needed repairs are completed within the stipulated timeframe. For those units in need of repairs, HPD?s policy requires that repairs be completed within 90 days after the initial inspection and supported by a Certificate of Repairs form. In accordance with the individual agreements between HPD and the Sponsors of the respective housing projects, the Sponsors are responsible for maintaining compliance with the Housing Quality Standards, and HPD inspections are conducted to help ensure the respective Sponsors are maintaining compliance. Additionally, there are clauses within the individual agreements between HPD and the Sponsor which allows HPD to exercise remedies such as restricting funding to Sponsors who do not comply with the Housing Quality Standards. Our procedures identified six (6) instances from a sample of forty (40), where the necessary repairs were not made by the Sponsors within the stipulated 90-day period. Cause/Effect: While HPD conducts monitoring procedures to help ensure that Housing Quality Standards are maintained and, when necessary, related repairs are performed by the respective Sponsors within the prescribed 90-day timeframe, we noted that the necessary repairs were not consistently completed within the stipulated timeframe or not completed at all. Incomplete and/or repairs that do not meet the stipulated completion timeframe could result in Sponsored projects not maintaining the appropriate quality of living conditions for tenants and, therefore, not comply with the applicable Housing Quality Standards. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: While contract provisions between HPD and the respective Sponsors permit HPD to exercise remedies, which may include the withdrawal of future funding, HPD did not elect to exercise any such remedies. Accordingly, we recommend that HPD continue to strengthen its monitoring of Sponsors in connection with housing quality inspections and determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether to exercise appropriate remedies in accordance with contract provisions or consider documenting its rationale for not doing so. Finding #: 2022-008 Funding Year(s): 12/18/2018 - 09/01/2027 HOME Investment Partnership Program (FAL #14.239) Contract Number: M-18-MC-36-0204; M-19-MC-36-0204 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Type of Finding: Special Tests and Provisions Compliance Criteria: During the period of affordability for which the non-Federal entity must maintain subsidized housing for the HOME-assisted rental housing program, the participating jurisdiction must perform on-site inspections at least once every three (3) years to determine compliance with Housing Quality Standards (24 CFR sections 92.209(i), 92.251(f), and 92.504(d)). Furthermore, for any failed inspections, the appropriate repairs to bring the building into compliance must be performed timely. Condition/Context: HPD has policies and procedures in place to identify units which require Housing Quality Standards inspections and performs inspections of these units to help ensure that any needed repairs are completed within the stipulated timeframe. For those units in need of repairs, HPD?s policy requires that repairs be completed within 90 days after the initial inspection and supported by a Certificate of Repairs form. In accordance with the individual agreements between HPD and the Sponsors of the respective housing projects, the Sponsors are responsible for maintaining compliance with the Housing Quality Standards, and HPD inspections are conducted to help ensure the respective Sponsors are maintaining compliance. Additionally, there are clauses within the individual agreements between HPD and the Sponsor which allows HPD to exercise remedies such as restricting funding to Sponsors who do not comply with the Housing Quality Standards. Our procedures identified six (6) instances from a sample of forty (40), where the necessary repairs were not made by the Sponsors within the stipulated 90-day period. Cause/Effect: While HPD conducts monitoring procedures to help ensure that Housing Quality Standards are maintained and, when necessary, related repairs are performed by the respective Sponsors within the prescribed 90-day timeframe, we noted that the necessary repairs were not consistently completed within the stipulated timeframe or not completed at all. Incomplete and/or repairs that do not meet the stipulated completion timeframe could result in Sponsored projects not maintaining the appropriate quality of living conditions for tenants and, therefore, not comply with the applicable Housing Quality Standards. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: While contract provisions between HPD and the respective Sponsors permit HPD to exercise remedies, which may include the withdrawal of future funding, HPD did not elect to exercise any such remedies. Accordingly, we recommend that HPD continue to strengthen its monitoring of Sponsors in connection with housing quality inspections and determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether to exercise appropriate remedies in accordance with contract provisions or consider documenting its rationale for not doing so.

New York City Department of Investigation (?DOI?) Finding #: 2022-009 Funding Year(s): 7/1/2021 ? 6/30/2022 Equitable Sharing Program (FAL #16.922) Contract Numbers: N/A Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Justice Type of Finding: Equipment and Real Property Management - Compliance and Internal Control (Significant Deficiency) Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR section 200.313(d)(1), property records must be maintained that include a description of the property, a serial number or other identification number, the source of funding for the property (including the FAIN), who holds title, the acquisition date, and cost of the property, percentage of Federal participation in the project costs for the Federal award under which the property was acquired, the location, use and condition of the property, and any ultimate disposition data including the date of disposal and sale price of the property. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR section 200.313(d)(2), a physical inventory of property and equipment acquired under a federal award must be taken, and the results reconciled with the property records, at least once every two years. Also, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of Federal Awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? (the ?Green Book?) 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?) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: From a non-statistical sample of forty (40) pieces of equipment subjected to testing, we identified the following errors: ? Seven (7) pieces of equipment were disposed of in fiscal 2019 but the disposition data was not properly updated and the equipment was not removed from the active inventory listing. ? For seven (7) pieces of equipment, DOI was unable to provide evidence that a physical inventory and reconciliation back to property records was performed and documented within the required two-year timeframe. ? For all forty (40) pieces of equipment, DOI was unable to provide supporting documentation that a review and approval of the inventory had taken place at the time the inventory was conducted. Cause/Effect: While DOI had certain procedures in place to monitor their equipment purchased with Federal funding, such procedures were not adequate to ensure that each aspect of the equipment and real property management compliance requirements were performed and documented within the requirement timeframe, which resulted in the findings noted above. Without the appropriate internal controls and monitoring procedures in place, federally funded equipment could be inaccurately recorded on inventory records and not discovered and corrected timely, inventory could be misplaced, misappropriated, or otherwise disposed of outside of the requirements of the federal guidelines Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding Recommendation: We recommend that DOI strengthen controls over the inventory process to ensure dispositions of equipment are updated in the equipment records, inventories performed are reconciled back to equipment records, biennial inventory counts are consistently performed over all equipment within the required timeframe, and that the review and approval of each inventory performed is appropriately documented.

New York City Police Department (?NYPD?) Finding #: 2022-010 Funding Year(s): 7/1/2021 ? 6/30/2022 Equitable Sharing Program (FAL #16.922) Contract Numbers: N/A Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Justice Type of Finding: Equipment and Real Property Management - Compliance and Internal Control (Significant Deficiency) Criteria: As stipulated by 2 CFR section 200.313(d)(2), a physical inventory of property and equipment acquired under a federal award must be taken, and the results reconciled with the property records, at least once every two (2) years. Also, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of Federal Awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? (the ?Green Book?) 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?) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: From a non-statistical sample of four (4) pieces of equipment subjected to testing, we identified that NYPD was unable to provide supporting documentation that a review and approval of the inventory had taken place at the time the inventory was conducted for all items selected for testing. Cause/Effect: While NYPD had certain procedures in place to monitor their equipment purchased with Federal funding, such procedures were not adequate to ensure that each aspect of the equipment and real property management compliance requirements were documented, which resulted in the finding noted above. Without the appropriate internal controls and monitoring procedures in place, federally funded equipment could be inaccurately recorded on inventory records and not discovered and corrected timely, inventory could be misplaced, misappropriated, or otherwise disposed of outside of the requirements of the federal guidelines Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding Recommendation: We recommend that NYPD strengthen controls over the inventory process to ensure that the review and approval of each inventory performed is appropriately documented.

New York City Human Resources Administration (?HRA?) Finding #: 2022-011 Funding Year(s): 10/19/2017-9/1/2025 HOME Investment Partnerships Program (FAL #14.239) Contract Numbers: M-17-MC-36-0204 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (?HUD?) Type of Finding: Special Tests and Provisions Material Non-Compliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: Per 24 CFR sections 92.504(d) all housing occupied by tenants receiving HOME tenant-based rental assistance must meet the standards in 24 CFR 982.401 or the successor requirements as established by HUD. The participating jurisdiction must perform annual on-site inspections of rental housing occupied by tenants receiving HOME-assisted TBRA to determine compliance with these standards. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of Federal Awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? (the ?Green Book?) 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?) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: HRA has policies and procedures in place to identify the units which require Housing Quality Standards inspections and performs inspections of these units to help ensure that any needed repairs are completed within the stipulated timeframe. For those units in need of repairs, HRA policy requires that repairs be completed within 30 days after the initial inspection and supported by a Certificate of Repairs form. In accordance with the individual agreements between HRA and the landlords of the units receiving Tenant Based Rental Assistance, the landlords are responsible for maintaining compliance with the Housing Quality Standards, and HRA inspections are conducted to help ensure the respective landlords are maintaining compliance. Additionally, there are clauses within the individual agreements between HRA and the landlord which allows HRA to exercise remedies such as restricting funding to landlords who do not comply with the Housing Quality Standards. We selected a non-statistical sample of forty (40) units inspected during FY2022 and found that twenty-one (21) of the selections had errors as follows: ? For eleven (11) of twenty-one (21), HRA was not able to provide a copy of the certification of repairs issued by the landlord noting when the repair was made to correct the issues identified in the failed inspection. ? For five (5) of twenty-one (21), the necessary repairs were not made by the landlord within the stipulated 30-day period. For all five (5) of these instances, HRA forwarded a Notification of Failure describing the findings and a reminder that the landlord had 30 days to submit a Certification of Repairs form. ? For two (2) of twenty-one (21), HRA was not able to provide a copy of the Notification of Failure submitted to the landlord to notify them of the failed inspection, reminding the landlord that they had 30 days to submit a Certification of Repairs form. ? For five (5) of twenty-one (21), HRA was not able to provide support noting that the initial inspection failure was dismissed and repairs were no longer necessary. ? For one (1) of twenty-one (21), HRA was not able to provide a copy of the inspection reports completed by a certified inspector. Cause/Effect: While HRA conducts monitoring procedures to help ensure that Housing Quality Standards are maintained and, when necessary, related repairs are performed by the respective landlords within the prescribed 30-day timeframe, we noted the following: ? A comprehensive review and internal control process was not consistently performed and documented to ensure the appropriate evidence was maintained to support the units were compliant with the applicable Housing Quality Standards. ? Necessary repairs were not completed at all, or evidence of the repairs was unable to be provided. Incomplete and/or repairs that do not meet the stipulated completion timeframe could result in landlords not maintaining the appropriate quality of living conditions for tenants and, therefore, not comply with the applicable Housing Quality Standards. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that HRA strengthen its monitoring of landlords in connection with housing quality inspections and determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether to exercise appropriate remedies in accordance with contract provisions or consider documenting its rationale for not doing so. Additionally, we recommend that HRA strengthen their internal controls governing the Housing Quality Standards process, including ensuring that appropriate documentation is maintained to ensure compliance with the Housing Quality Standards.

New York City Human Resources Administration (?HRA?) Finding #: 2022-012 Funding Year(s): 10/19/2017-9/1/2025 HOME Investment Partnerships Program (FAL #14.239) Contract Numbers: M-17-MC-36-0204 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Type of Finding: Allowable Costs and Eligibility - Material Noncompliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: In accordance with 23 CFR sections 1.9, 172.11(a), 420.113(a), and 630.106(a), costs incurred under federal awards are considered allowable and reimbursable when such costs are deemed necessary and reasonable; incurred subsequent to the date of authorization to proceed and in accordance with the conditions contained in the project agreement and the plans specifications; and, not included as costs used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements, among other things. As stipulated by 24 CFR ?92.209, tenant-based rental assistance (?TBRA?) may only be provided to very low- and low-income families. The participating jurisdiction must determine that the family is very low- or low-income before the assistance is provided. During the period of assistance, the participating jurisdiction must annually determine that the family continues to be low-income. Also, the maximum monthly assistance that a participating jurisdiction may pay to, or on behalf of, a family may not exceed the difference between a rent standard for the unit size established by the participating jurisdiction and 30% of the family's monthly adjusted income. Additionally, the participating jurisdiction must disapprove a lease if the rent is not reasonable, based on rents that are charged for comparable unassisted rental units. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of Federal Awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? (the ?Green Book?) 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?) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: The New York City Human Resources Administration (?HRA?) utilizes the Current System to assess beneficiaries? eligibility to receive tenant based rental assistance through the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (?HOME?). To assess eligibility, HRA program staff obtain income supporting documentation to determine if the household met the low-income requirement and to calculate the maximum subsidy amount to be paid by HRA. Additionally, a rent reasonableness valuation is performed which compares the current beneficiary?s rent to other rents charged for comparable units to ensure reasonableness. Upon the completion of the eligibility determination by an HRA staff member, a designated program supervisor reviews and approves the eligibility determination, subsidy amount, and tenant share within Current. We selected a non-statistical sample of forty (40) rental assistance payments made on behalf of tenants during fiscal 2022 and found that twenty-two (22) of the selections had errors as follows: ? For thirteen (13) of the twenty-two (22) selections, HRA was not able to provide documentation to support the participant?s annual income. ? For nine (9) of the twenty-two (22) selections , HRA was also not able to provide the HOME TBRA Certification Information Form, which is utilized to calculate and support HRA?s share of the monthly rent to be paid on behalf of the participant. ? For fourteen (14) of the twenty-two (22) selections, HRA was not able to provide documentation to support that a rent reasonableness assessment was performed. ? For four (4) of the twenty-two (22) selections, it was noted that HRA?s share of monthly rent was determined to be $1,729, $1,778, $1,544, and $235, respectively. However, due to manual input errors, the amounts actually paid on behalf of these tenants were $1,780, $1,762, $1,534, and $176, respectively. ? For one (1) of the twenty-two (22) selections, HRA was unable to provide documentation to support that the eligibility determination and the related calculation was properly reviewed and approved by a supervisor. Total TBRA payments charged to the grant were $5,533,841 and total TBRA benefits subjected to testing were $54,915. Cause/Effect: While HRA has a process in place to assess the eligibility of tenants and calculate the monthly TBRA payments on behalf of those tenants to ensure allowability of costs incurred, a comprehensive review was not consistently performed and documented to ensure the appropriate evidence and related approvals were maintained to support those determinations and calculations. As a result, costs were incurred on behalf of certain tenants that may not have met the eligibility requirements, or an incorrect amount may have been paid on their behalf. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs totaled $18,240. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2021-011, included on pages 249 and 250 of the Fiscal 2021 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend that HRA strengthen their internal controls governing the eligibility determination process, including creating a comprehensive review checklist to ensure each tenant meets every eligibility requirement and HRA?s portion of the TBRA payments are properly calculated, and that appropriate supervisory review and approval is consistently performed and documented prior to processing payments and charging costs to the grant.

New York City Human Resources Administration (?HRA?) Finding #: 2022-013 Funding Year(s): 7/1/2021 ? 6/30/2022 Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) (FAL #14.241) Contract Numbers: NYH21F002; NYH22F002 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Type of Finding: Eligibility - Material Noncompliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: As stipulated by 24 CFR Section 574.3, to be eligible to receive HOPWA funded benefits, a participant must be diagnosed with an acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or related diseases and be a low-income individual, as determined by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. HRA utilizes the household income of eligible participants to calculate the monthly rental assistance payment to be made on their behalf. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of Federal Awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? (the ?Green Book?) 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?) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: We noted that certain rental assistance payments were calculated using an incorrect household income amount. From a non-statistical sample of forty (40) rental assistance payments made on behalf of tenants during FY2022 that were selected for testing, we identified five (5) exceptions, as follows: ? For one (1) of the selections, HRA utilized household income that was higher than their actual income, which caused HRA?s monthly rental assistance payment for the selected period to be less than it should have been. ? For four (4) of the selections, HRA utilized household income that was lower than their actual income, which caused HRA?s monthly rental assistance payment for the selected period to be higher than it should have been. The excess payments for these selections totaled $88. Total rental assistance payments charged to the grant were $20,870,225 and total HOPWA rent subsidies subjected to testing were $51,878. Cause/Effect: While HRA has a process in place to assess the eligibility of tenants and calculate the monthly rental assistance payments to be made on their behalf, they did not consistently ensure that the household income utilized to calculate the monthly rental assistance payment was accurate. As a result, an incorrect monthly rental assistance amount was paid on behalf of certain tenants. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs totaled $88. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2021-012, included on pages 251 and 252 of the Fiscal 2021 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend that HRA strengthen their internal controls governing the eligibility process, including ensuring the household income utilized to calculate the monthly rental assistance amount is accurate prior to processing payments and charging costs to the grant.

New York City Human Resources Administration (?HRA?) Finding #: 2022-014 Funding Year(s): 4/1/2021 ? 3/31/2023 Housing Opportunities for Persons with Aids (FAL #14.241) Contract Numbers: NYH21F002; NYH22F002 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Type of Finding: Special Tests and Provisions - Compliance and Internal Control (Significant Deficiency) Criteria: All housing that is assisted under specific HOPWA activities per CFR sections 574.300(b) (3), (4), (5), and (8) must meet specific applicable Housing Quality Standards (?HQS?) as outlined in 24 CFR section 574.310(b) determined by on-site inspections. On May 22, 2020 HUD waived the physical inspection requirement for acquisition, rehabilitation, conversion, lease, or repair; new construction of single room occupancy dwellings and community residences; project or tenant-based rental assistance; or operating costs through March 31, 2022, so long as grantees or project sponsors can visually inspect the unit using technology, such as video streaming, to ensure the unit meets HQS before any assistance is provided; and the grantee or project sponsor has written policies that require physical reinspection of the units not previously physically inspected by June 30, 2022. This waiver applied to units where initial eligibility to receive rental assistance was determined during the fiscal year. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of Federal Awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? (the ?Green Book?) 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?) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: Prior to providing rental assistance to landlords, HRA conducts on-site inspections to ensure each unit meets all applicable Housing Quality Standards. During each inspection, a HRA Case Manager would assign a Quality Assurance (?QA? Inspector to complete an inspection checklist, which outlines each standard and documents if the unit passed or failed each requirement. The QA Inspector would sign off on the report and provide it to the landlord, noting if any repairs are required. In addition to the initial annual inspection, if there were any adverse findings identified, the Case Manager would conduct follow-up visits for that unit until the findings were remediated. If an on-site inspection was unable to be conducted prior to March 31, 2022, a virtual inspection was performed by a QA Inspector via video call. Similarly, an inspection checklist would be completed for the virtual inspection and the QA Inspector would sign off on the checklist and provide a copy to the landlord. Any repairs needed would be followed up on by the Case Manager until all corrections were implemented. After March 31, 2022, HRA would then ensure a physical inspection was conducted prior to June 30, 2022. In accordance with the individual agreements between HRA and the landlords of the units receiving the rental assistance, the landlords are responsible for maintaining compliance with the HQS, and the HRA inspections are conducted to help ensure the respective landlords are maintaining compliance. We selected a non-statistical sample of nineteen (19) units that were subject to an initial inspection by HRA during fiscal 2022 and noted that for three (3) selections, HRA was unable to provide a copy of the inspection checklist that was completed by the QA Inspector prior to assistance being provided for the unit. Cause/Effect: While HRA conducts monitoring procedures to help ensure that Housing Quality Standards are maintained and, when necessary, related repairs are performed by the respective landlords within the prescribed 30-day timeframe, we noted that the inspection checklists used to document such procedures were not consistently maintained. If controls aren?t in place to ensure each unit is properly inspected in accordance with the guidelines and HRA?s policies, there is a risk that some units may not meet the appropriate quality of living conditions for tenants and, therefore, not comply with the applicable Housing Quality Standards. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that HRA strengthen their internal controls governing the Housing Quality Standards inspection process, including that appropriate documentation is maintained for each inspection performed, to ensure compliance with the requirements is met for each unit under their supervision.

New York City Human Resources Administration (?HRA?) and Administration for Children?s Services (?ACS?) Finding #: 2022-015 Funding Year(s): 10/1/2020-9/30/2022 Child Care and Development Block Grant (FAL #93.575) Contract Numbers: 21-OCFS-LCM-19, 22-OCFS-LCM-08 Pass-Through Agency: NYS Office of Children and Family Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Type of Finding: Allowable Costs and Eligibility - Material Noncompliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: In accordance with 23 CFR sections 1.9, 172.11(a), 420.113(a), and 630.106(a), costs incurred under federal awards are considered allowable and reimbursable when such costs are deemed necessary and reasonable; incurred subsequent to the date of authorization to proceed and in accordance with the conditions contained in the project agreement and the plans specifications; and, not included as costs used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements, among other things. As stipulated by the 45 CFR Part 98 Subpart C, to be eligible for services under the Child Care and Development Block Grant (?CCDBG?), a child shall (1) be under the age of thirteen (13) years of age or be under the age of nineteen (19) and physically or mentally incapable of caring for himself or herself; (2) Reside with a family whose income does not exceed 85 percent of the State's median income (SMI) and whose family assets do not exceed $1,000,000; and (3) reside with a parent or parents who are working or attending a job training or educational program; or receive, or need to receive, protective services. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of Federal Awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? (the ?Green Book?) 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?) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: We selected a non-statistical sample of sixty-five (65) individuals who received services under CCDBG during FY2022 and found that four (4) of the individuals tested had errors as follows: ? Two (2) of the individuals tested from HRA and one (1) of the individuals tested from ACS not meet some or all of the eligibility criteria as stipulated in 45 CFR Part 98 Subpart C ? For one (1) of the individuals, ACS was not able to provide documentation to support that the individual met all the eligibility criteria as stipulated in 45 CFR Part 98 Subpart C Total CCDBG Benefits charged to the grant were $276,786,114 and total CCDBG benefits subjected to testing were $48,752. Cause/Effect: While HRA and ACS have a process in place to assess the eligibility of children, a comprehensive review was not consistently performed and documented to ensure the appropriate evidence and related approvals were maintained to support those determinations. As a result, costs were incurred on behalf of certain children that did not meet all of the eligibility requirements. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $2,419. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that HRA and ACS strengthen their internal controls governing the eligibility requirements, including implementing a review checklist to ensure the child meets every eligibility requirement per 45 CFR Part 98 Subpart C during the eligibility determination process.

New York City Department for the Aging (?DFTA?) Finding #: 2022-016 Funding Year(s): 07/01/2021 - 06/30/2022 New York City Department for the Aging: Aging Cluster (FAL #93.044, 93.045 & 93.053) Contract Number: N/A Pass-Through Agency: New York State Office for the Aging Type of Finding: Subrecipient Monitoring Compliance and Internal Control (Significant Deficiency) Criteria: The subrecipient monitoring requirements of 2 CFR 200.332(a)(1) stipulate that pass-through entities include specific Federal award information within sub-award contracts. Such information, among other things, should include: i. Subrecipient?s unique identifying number; ii. Federal Award Identification Number; iii. Federal Award Date of award to City Agency by the Federal agency; iv. Name of Federal awarding agency; and v. Assistance Listing title Condition/Context: Of the forty (40) subrecipient contracts under the Aging Cluster that were selected for testing, none of the contracts included any of the data points described above (i.-v.) in accordance with 2 CFR 200.332(a)(1). Cause/Effect: While DFTA has established subrecipient monitoring procedures, such procedures did not adequately contemplate all of the required elements and/or data points necessary to be included in all of their respective subrecipient agreements. Missing or incomplete required data elements could result in subrecipients not having sufficient information to appropriately comply with Uniform Guidance reporting and/or other program specific compliance requirements. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is similar to finding #2021-005 included on pages 236 through 237 of the of the Fiscal 2021 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend that DFTA create a comprehensive internal control structure which ensures that all subrecipient compliance requirements are being met, including a review of all subrecipient contracts and related amendments, to ensure every subrecipient agreement contains all of the required information stipulated by 2 CFR 200.332(a)(1).

New York City Department of Education (?DOE?) Finding #: 2022-001 Funding Year(s): 9/1/2020 ? 8/31/2022 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies (FAL #84.010) Contract Numbers: 1R4551J01, 1R4551M01, 1R4510M01, 1R4511L01, 1R4519F01 Career & Technical Education - Basic Grants to States (FAL #84.048) Contract Numbers: 1R0551A01, 1R0579A01 Twenty-First Century Community Learning Centers (FAL #84.287) Contract Numbers: 1R3902A01, 1R3907A01, 1R3912A01, 1R3918A01, 1R3920A01, 1R3930A01, 1R3903A01, 1R3925A01 English Language Acquisition Grants (FAL #84.365) Contract Number: 1R4142A01, 1R4151A01, 1R4164A01 Supporting Effective Instruction State Grant (FAL #84.367) Contract Numbers: 1R2664A01 Student Support and Academic Enrichment (FAL #84.424) Contract Numbers: 1R1951A01, 1R1951B01 Pass-Through Agency: New York State Department of Education Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Type of Finding: Reporting Compliance Criteria: As stipulated by the New York State Education Department (?NYSED?) Fiscal Guidelines for Federal and State Grants, program recipients are required to submit to NYSED a signed copy of the Final Expenditure Report for a Federal Project (?FS-10F?) within 90 days following the end of the grant award period. Condition/Context: Of the sixty-six (66) FS-10F reports submitted by the DOE during fiscal year 2022, we selected a sample of twenty-six (26) FS-10F reports and found that twenty-one (21) of the reports tested were submitted after the required due date, as follows: ? Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies (FAL #84.010): of the nine (9) FS-10F reports tested, five (5) reports were submitted between 70 and 126 days late. ? Career & Technical Education - Basic Grants to States (FAL #84.048): of the two (2) FS-10F reports tested, such reports were submitted between 21 and 43 days late. ? Twenty-First Century Community Learning Centers (FAL #84.287): of the eight (8) FS-10F reports tested, such reports were submitted between 3 and 36 days late. ? English Language Acquisition Grants (FAL #84.365): of the three (3) FS-10F reports tested, such reports were submitted between 70 and 123 days late. ? Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (FAL #84.367): of the two (2) FS-10F reports tested, one (1) report was submitted 123 days late. ? Student Support and Academic Enrichment (FAL #84.424): of the two (2) FS-10F reports tested, such reports were submitted between 112 and 123 days late. Cause/Effect: We were informed that due to open encumbrances which had not been fully liquidated by the FS-10F due date, the DOE was unable to complete and submit the FS-10F financial reports within the stipulated 90-day period, thus resulting in late-filed reports. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2021-001, included on pages 228 and 229 of the Fiscal 2021 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend the DOE consider establishing procedures and operational practices whereby disposition of open encumbrances is accelerated such that all FS-10F expenditure reports are prepared and submitted within the required 90-day timeframe.

Finding #: 2022-002 Funding Year(s): 7/1/2021-6/30/2022 Port Security Grant Program (FAL #97.056) Contract Number: EMW-2015-PU-APP-00314, EMW-2017-PU-00122 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Type of Finding: Equipment and Real Property Management - Compliance and Internal Control (Control Deficiency) Criteria: As stipulated by 2 CFR sections 200.313(d)(2), a physical inventory of property and equipment acquired under a federal award must be taken, and the results reconciled with the property records, at least once every two years. Condition/Context: The New York City Police Department (?NYPD?) utilizes the City?s Grants Tracking System (?GTS?), a citywide web-based inventory program, designed to standardize the tracking of federally funded equipment. Further, NYPD Command-designated grants coordinators are responsible for monitoring the equipment and updating the inventory on a periodic basis in accordance with federal guidelines. The NYPD Grants Unit periodically generates an inventory listing from GTS that includes the biennial inventory count due date for each item and distributes it to the assigned NYPD Command designated grant coordinators to ensure the inventory count is conducted timely and in accordance with federal requirements. After the completion of biennial inventory count, the NYPD Command-designated grants coordinators update the inventory count information to GTS. From a haphazard sample of twenty (20) pieces of equipment subjected to testing, we identified three (3) items where the NYPD Command-designated grants coordinators were unable to support that a physical inventory count was conducted within the required two-year period as of June 30, 2022. Cause/Effect: During 2021, the Grants Tracking System was upgraded and the most recent inventory entry and the original acquisition information were migrated to the new system. However, inventory entries performed between acquisition and the most recent inventory entry were not migrated. As per the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the citywide GTS is the record for all grant-related inventory information. The NYPD does not maintain a separate inventory tracking mechanism. As a result, NYPD could not provide documentation that they complied with 2 CFR sections 200.313(d)(2) as of year-end for three (3) pieces of equipment selected. Inventory counts that are not completed within the required timeframe could result in federally funded equipment being inaccurately recorded on the inventory records and not discovered and corrected timely. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2021-003 included on pages 232 through 233 of the Fiscal 2021 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend that NYPD strengthen controls over the inventory process to ensure biennial inventory counts for all equipment are consistently performed and documented within the required timeframe, and that such documentation is properly maintained.

New York City Department of Human Resources Administration (?HRA?) Finding #: 2022-003 Funding Year(s): 1/22/2021 ? 1/21/2023 Emergency Solutions Grants Program (FAL #14.231) Contract Number: E20MC360104 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Type of Finding: Special Tests and Provisions - Compliance and Internal Control (Control Deficiency) Criteria: Per 24 CFR Section 576.203(a)(2), within 180 days after the date that HUD signs the grant agreement with the metropolitan city, urban county, or territory, the recipient must obligate all the grant amount, except the amount for its administrative costs. Total grant award obligations are required to be reported to HUD through the Integrated Disbursement and Information System (?IDIS?), using a PR-91 ESG Financial Summary Report. Condition/Context: HUD signed HRA?s Emergency Solutions Grants Program (?ESG?) grant agreement #E20MC360104 on January 21, 2021, and as such the total grant amount was required to be obligated by July 20, 2021. Per the PR-91 ESG Financial Summary Report submitted by HRA through IDIS on October 12, 2021, $202,222 of the total $14,657,037 award had not been obligated by the required due date. Cause/Effect: While HRA has policies and procedures in place regarding the review and approval of the PR-91 ESG Financial Report, this process did not include a comprehensive review to ensure that HRA obligated all grant funding within the required timeframe prior to submission. As such, this resulted in HRA?s non-compliance. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that HRA strengthen their internal controls over the special tests and provisions process to ensure all grant amounts are obligated within the required 180-day timeframe, and that the obligation is properly reviewed prior to the PR-91 ESG Financial Report submission through IDIS.

New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene ("DOHMH") Finding #: 2022-004 Funding Year(s): 8/1/2020 ? 7/31/2025 HIV Prevention Activities ? Health Department Based (FAL #93.940) Contract Number: 20NU62PS924626 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Type of Finding: Reporting - Compliance and Internal Control (Control Deficiency) Criteria: Under the requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (?FFATA?) (Pub. L. No. 109-282), as amended by Section 6202 of Pub. L. No. 110-252, hereafter referred as the ?Transparency Act? that are codified in 2 CFR Part 170, recipients (i.e., direct recipients) of grants or cooperative agreements are required to report first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Subaward Reporting System (FSRS). The award information must be reported in FSRS no later than the last day of the month following the month in which the subaward/subaward amendment obligation was made or the subcontract award/subcontract modification was made. Condition/Context: During fiscal year 2022, HIV Prevention Activities awarded a total of two (2) sub-awards that exceeded $30,000 to one (1) subrecipient. Refer to the table below for results of our testing. Cause/Effect: While DOHMH has established policies and procedures to ensure that the required reports are accurately completed and submitted on a timely basis, we noted oversight on the timely reporting for the subawards. This resulted in DOHMH missing the filing window and failing to submit its subawards in the FSRS system within the stipulated reporting period, no later than the last day of the month following the month in which the subaward/subaward amendment obligation was made or the subcontract award/subcontract modification was made. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that DOHMH strengthen their internal controls over the reporting process to ensure all FFATA reports are submitted within the required timeframe.

New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (?DOHMH?) Finding #: 2022-005 Funding Year(s): 8/1/2020 - 12/31/2022 HIV Prevention Activities ? Health Department Based (FAL #93.940) Contract Numbers: 5 NU62PS924575-04-00; 5 NU62PS924575-05-00; 1NU62PS924626-01-00; 6NU62PS924626-02-01 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Type of Finding: Subrecipient Monitoring - Compliance and Internal Control (Significant Deficiency) Criteria: The subrecipient monitoring requirements of 2 CFR 200.332(d) stipulate that pass-through entities must monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals. Condition/Context: During fiscal 2022, DOHMH passed through federal funding to one subrecipient. We selected this subrecipient for testing and noted that DOHMH did not perform any of the required monitoring procedures in accordance with 2 CFR 200.332(d). Cause/Effect: While DOHMH has established procedures to comply with certain aspects of the subrecipient monitoring compliance requirements, such procedures did not include performing on-site reviews or similar alternate procedures that would allow DOHMH to properly oversee and evaluate the subrecipients? compliance with the requirements of the subaward. Without proper monitoring procedures, DOHMH may not have the appropriate amount of information to ensure the subrecipient is being used in accordance with Federal guidelines and the terms of the subaward. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that DOHMH create a comprehensive internal control structure which ensures that all subrecipient compliance requirements are being met, including performing appropriate monitoring procedures to ensure each subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves the performance goals of the subaward.

New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene ("DOHMH") Finding #: 2022-006 Funding Year(s): 7/1/2021 ? 6/30/2022 Public Health Emergency Preparedness (FAL #93.069) Contract Numbers: NU90TP922035 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Type of Finding: Level of Effort ? Compliance and Internal Control (Control Deficiency) Criteria: The 2 CFR section 200.514(d)(3) states that for those federal programs not covered in the compliance supplement the auditor must use the types of compliance requirements contained and described in Part 3 of the compliance supplement as guidance for identifying the types of compliance requirements to test, and determine the requirements governing the federal program by reviewing the provisions of the federal award or pass-through agency sub-award, and the laws and regulations referred in such awards. As stipulated by Public Health Solutions ("PHS"), the pass-through agency, in its sub-award agreement, Awardees must maintain non-federal expenditures for health-care preparedness and public health security at a level that is not less than the average level of such non-federal expenditures maintained by the awardee for the preceding two-year (2) period. Condition/Context: We noted that total Public Health Emergency Preparedness (?PHEP?) non-federal expenditures for the current year were below the average level of non-federal expenditures for the preceding two-year (2) period. Non-federal expenditures to the program for FY2022 totaled $2,091,743; whereas the average non-federal expenditures for FY2020 & FY2021 totaled $2,482,528. Cause/Effect: While DOHMH has a process in place to track and calculate non-federal expenditures for health-care preparedness and public health security, they did not consistently ensure progressive non-federal expenditures were adequately meeting the appropriate level of effort requirements. As a result, total programmatic non-federal expenditures for the year totaled less than the level of effort requirement. Questioned Costs: None identified Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding Recommendation: We recommend that DOHMH strengthen their internal controls regarding compliance surrounding the level of effort requirements, including the appropriate tracking of progressive non-federal expenditures to ensure programmatic level of effort requirements are met. Finding #: 2022-006 Funding Year(s): 7/1/2021 ? 6/30/2022 Public Health Emergency Preparedness (FAL #93.069) Contract Numbers: NU90TP922035 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Type of Finding: Level of Effort ? Compliance and Internal Control (Control Deficiency) Criteria: The 2 CFR section 200.514(d)(3) states that for those federal programs not covered in the compliance supplement the auditor must use the types of compliance requirements contained and described in Part 3 of the compliance supplement as guidance for identifying the types of compliance requirements to test, and determine the requirements governing the federal program by reviewing the provisions of the federal award or pass-through agency sub-award, and the laws and regulations referred in such awards. As stipulated by Public Health Solutions ("PHS"), the pass-through agency, in its sub-award agreement, Awardees must maintain non-federal expenditures for health-care preparedness and public health security at a level that is not less than the average level of such non-federal expenditures maintained by the awardee for the preceding two-year (2) period. Condition/Context: We noted that total Public Health Emergency Preparedness (?PHEP?) non-federal expenditures for the current year were below the average level of non-federal expenditures for the preceding two-year (2) period. Non-federal expenditures to the program for FY2022 totaled $2,091,743; whereas the average non-federal expenditures for FY2020 & FY2021 totaled $2,482,528. Cause/Effect: While DOHMH has a process in place to track and calculate non-federal expenditures for health-care preparedness and public health security, they did not consistently ensure progressive non-federal expenditures were adequately meeting the appropriate level of effort requirements. As a result, total programmatic non-federal expenditures for the year totaled less than the level of effort requirement. Questioned Costs: None identified Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding Recommendation: We recommend that DOHMH strengthen their internal controls regarding compliance surrounding the level of effort requirements, including the appropriate tracking of progressive non-federal expenditures to ensure programmatic level of effort requirements are met.

New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene ("DOHMH") Finding #: 2022-007 Funding Year(s): 4/1/2021 ? 3/31/2022 Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) (FAL #14.241) Contract Number: NYH21F002 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Type of Finding: Reporting ? Material Noncompliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: Under the requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (?FFATA?) (Pub. L. No. 109-282), as amended by Section 6202 of Pub. L. No. 110-252 (the ?Transparency Act?) that are codified in 2 CFR Part 170, recipients (i.e., direct recipients) of grants or cooperative agreements are required to report first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Subaward Reporting System (FSRS). The award information must be reported in FSRS no later than the last day of the month following the month in which the subaward/subaward amendment obligation was made or the subcontract award/subcontract modification was made. Condition/Context: During fiscal year 2022, DOHMH awarded a total of four (4) sub-awards that exceeded $30,000 to three (3) separate subrecipients. We noted that none of these sub-awards were reported in the FSRS system. Cause/Effect: While DOHMH has processes in place to ensure the SAM (System for Award Management) registrations for grant awards are registered under the correct entity, during fiscal 2022, due to management oversite, the SAM registration for this program was not properly processed. The HOPWA agreement was registered under The City of New York, rather than DOHMH, which resulted in DOHMH?s inability to submit information to the FSRS system for FFATA reporting, and therefore, they did not submit any of the required reports related to their fiscal 2022 HOPWA awards. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that DOHMH strengthen their processes and internal controls over reporting to ensure all FFATA reports are submitted within the required timeframe, including ensuring that the SAM registration process is completed properly under the correct City agency.

New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (?HPD?) Finding #: 2022-008 Funding Year(s): 12/18/2018 - 09/01/2027 HOME Investment Partnership Program (FAL #14.239) Contract Number: M-18-MC-36-0204; M-19-MC-36-0204 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Type of Finding: Special Tests and Provisions Compliance Criteria: During the period of affordability for which the non-Federal entity must maintain subsidized housing for the HOME-assisted rental housing program, the participating jurisdiction must perform on-site inspections at least once every three (3) years to determine compliance with Housing Quality Standards (24 CFR sections 92.209(i), 92.251(f), and 92.504(d)). Furthermore, for any failed inspections, the appropriate repairs to bring the building into compliance must be performed timely. Condition/Context: HPD has policies and procedures in place to identify units which require Housing Quality Standards inspections and performs inspections of these units to help ensure that any needed repairs are completed within the stipulated timeframe. For those units in need of repairs, HPD?s policy requires that repairs be completed within 90 days after the initial inspection and supported by a Certificate of Repairs form. In accordance with the individual agreements between HPD and the Sponsors of the respective housing projects, the Sponsors are responsible for maintaining compliance with the Housing Quality Standards, and HPD inspections are conducted to help ensure the respective Sponsors are maintaining compliance. Additionally, there are clauses within the individual agreements between HPD and the Sponsor which allows HPD to exercise remedies such as restricting funding to Sponsors who do not comply with the Housing Quality Standards. Our procedures identified six (6) instances from a sample of forty (40), where the necessary repairs were not made by the Sponsors within the stipulated 90-day period. Cause/Effect: While HPD conducts monitoring procedures to help ensure that Housing Quality Standards are maintained and, when necessary, related repairs are performed by the respective Sponsors within the prescribed 90-day timeframe, we noted that the necessary repairs were not consistently completed within the stipulated timeframe or not completed at all. Incomplete and/or repairs that do not meet the stipulated completion timeframe could result in Sponsored projects not maintaining the appropriate quality of living conditions for tenants and, therefore, not comply with the applicable Housing Quality Standards. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: While contract provisions between HPD and the respective Sponsors permit HPD to exercise remedies, which may include the withdrawal of future funding, HPD did not elect to exercise any such remedies. Accordingly, we recommend that HPD continue to strengthen its monitoring of Sponsors in connection with housing quality inspections and determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether to exercise appropriate remedies in accordance with contract provisions or consider documenting its rationale for not doing so. Finding #: 2022-008 Funding Year(s): 12/18/2018 - 09/01/2027 HOME Investment Partnership Program (FAL #14.239) Contract Number: M-18-MC-36-0204; M-19-MC-36-0204 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Type of Finding: Special Tests and Provisions Compliance Criteria: During the period of affordability for which the non-Federal entity must maintain subsidized housing for the HOME-assisted rental housing program, the participating jurisdiction must perform on-site inspections at least once every three (3) years to determine compliance with Housing Quality Standards (24 CFR sections 92.209(i), 92.251(f), and 92.504(d)). Furthermore, for any failed inspections, the appropriate repairs to bring the building into compliance must be performed timely. Condition/Context: HPD has policies and procedures in place to identify units which require Housing Quality Standards inspections and performs inspections of these units to help ensure that any needed repairs are completed within the stipulated timeframe. For those units in need of repairs, HPD?s policy requires that repairs be completed within 90 days after the initial inspection and supported by a Certificate of Repairs form. In accordance with the individual agreements between HPD and the Sponsors of the respective housing projects, the Sponsors are responsible for maintaining compliance with the Housing Quality Standards, and HPD inspections are conducted to help ensure the respective Sponsors are maintaining compliance. Additionally, there are clauses within the individual agreements between HPD and the Sponsor which allows HPD to exercise remedies such as restricting funding to Sponsors who do not comply with the Housing Quality Standards. Our procedures identified six (6) instances from a sample of forty (40), where the necessary repairs were not made by the Sponsors within the stipulated 90-day period. Cause/Effect: While HPD conducts monitoring procedures to help ensure that Housing Quality Standards are maintained and, when necessary, related repairs are performed by the respective Sponsors within the prescribed 90-day timeframe, we noted that the necessary repairs were not consistently completed within the stipulated timeframe or not completed at all. Incomplete and/or repairs that do not meet the stipulated completion timeframe could result in Sponsored projects not maintaining the appropriate quality of living conditions for tenants and, therefore, not comply with the applicable Housing Quality Standards. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: While contract provisions between HPD and the respective Sponsors permit HPD to exercise remedies, which may include the withdrawal of future funding, HPD did not elect to exercise any such remedies. Accordingly, we recommend that HPD continue to strengthen its monitoring of Sponsors in connection with housing quality inspections and determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether to exercise appropriate remedies in accordance with contract provisions or consider documenting its rationale for not doing so.

New York City Department of Investigation (?DOI?) Finding #: 2022-009 Funding Year(s): 7/1/2021 ? 6/30/2022 Equitable Sharing Program (FAL #16.922) Contract Numbers: N/A Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Justice Type of Finding: Equipment and Real Property Management - Compliance and Internal Control (Significant Deficiency) Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR section 200.313(d)(1), property records must be maintained that include a description of the property, a serial number or other identification number, the source of funding for the property (including the FAIN), who holds title, the acquisition date, and cost of the property, percentage of Federal participation in the project costs for the Federal award under which the property was acquired, the location, use and condition of the property, and any ultimate disposition data including the date of disposal and sale price of the property. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR section 200.313(d)(2), a physical inventory of property and equipment acquired under a federal award must be taken, and the results reconciled with the property records, at least once every two years. Also, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of Federal Awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? (the ?Green Book?) 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?) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: From a non-statistical sample of forty (40) pieces of equipment subjected to testing, we identified the following errors: ? Seven (7) pieces of equipment were disposed of in fiscal 2019 but the disposition data was not properly updated and the equipment was not removed from the active inventory listing. ? For seven (7) pieces of equipment, DOI was unable to provide evidence that a physical inventory and reconciliation back to property records was performed and documented within the required two-year timeframe. ? For all forty (40) pieces of equipment, DOI was unable to provide supporting documentation that a review and approval of the inventory had taken place at the time the inventory was conducted. Cause/Effect: While DOI had certain procedures in place to monitor their equipment purchased with Federal funding, such procedures were not adequate to ensure that each aspect of the equipment and real property management compliance requirements were performed and documented within the requirement timeframe, which resulted in the findings noted above. Without the appropriate internal controls and monitoring procedures in place, federally funded equipment could be inaccurately recorded on inventory records and not discovered and corrected timely, inventory could be misplaced, misappropriated, or otherwise disposed of outside of the requirements of the federal guidelines Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding Recommendation: We recommend that DOI strengthen controls over the inventory process to ensure dispositions of equipment are updated in the equipment records, inventories performed are reconciled back to equipment records, biennial inventory counts are consistently performed over all equipment within the required timeframe, and that the review and approval of each inventory performed is appropriately documented.

New York City Police Department (?NYPD?) Finding #: 2022-010 Funding Year(s): 7/1/2021 ? 6/30/2022 Equitable Sharing Program (FAL #16.922) Contract Numbers: N/A Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Justice Type of Finding: Equipment and Real Property Management - Compliance and Internal Control (Significant Deficiency) Criteria: As stipulated by 2 CFR section 200.313(d)(2), a physical inventory of property and equipment acquired under a federal award must be taken, and the results reconciled with the property records, at least once every two (2) years. Also, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of Federal Awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? (the ?Green Book?) 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?) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: From a non-statistical sample of four (4) pieces of equipment subjected to testing, we identified that NYPD was unable to provide supporting documentation that a review and approval of the inventory had taken place at the time the inventory was conducted for all items selected for testing. Cause/Effect: While NYPD had certain procedures in place to monitor their equipment purchased with Federal funding, such procedures were not adequate to ensure that each aspect of the equipment and real property management compliance requirements were documented, which resulted in the finding noted above. Without the appropriate internal controls and monitoring procedures in place, federally funded equipment could be inaccurately recorded on inventory records and not discovered and corrected timely, inventory could be misplaced, misappropriated, or otherwise disposed of outside of the requirements of the federal guidelines Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding Recommendation: We recommend that NYPD strengthen controls over the inventory process to ensure that the review and approval of each inventory performed is appropriately documented.

New York City Human Resources Administration (?HRA?) Finding #: 2022-011 Funding Year(s): 10/19/2017-9/1/2025 HOME Investment Partnerships Program (FAL #14.239) Contract Numbers: M-17-MC-36-0204 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (?HUD?) Type of Finding: Special Tests and Provisions Material Non-Compliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: Per 24 CFR sections 92.504(d) all housing occupied by tenants receiving HOME tenant-based rental assistance must meet the standards in 24 CFR 982.401 or the successor requirements as established by HUD. The participating jurisdiction must perform annual on-site inspections of rental housing occupied by tenants receiving HOME-assisted TBRA to determine compliance with these standards. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of Federal Awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? (the ?Green Book?) 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?) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: HRA has policies and procedures in place to identify the units which require Housing Quality Standards inspections and performs inspections of these units to help ensure that any needed repairs are completed within the stipulated timeframe. For those units in need of repairs, HRA policy requires that repairs be completed within 30 days after the initial inspection and supported by a Certificate of Repairs form. In accordance with the individual agreements between HRA and the landlords of the units receiving Tenant Based Rental Assistance, the landlords are responsible for maintaining compliance with the Housing Quality Standards, and HRA inspections are conducted to help ensure the respective landlords are maintaining compliance. Additionally, there are clauses within the individual agreements between HRA and the landlord which allows HRA to exercise remedies such as restricting funding to landlords who do not comply with the Housing Quality Standards. We selected a non-statistical sample of forty (40) units inspected during FY2022 and found that twenty-one (21) of the selections had errors as follows: ? For eleven (11) of twenty-one (21), HRA was not able to provide a copy of the certification of repairs issued by the landlord noting when the repair was made to correct the issues identified in the failed inspection. ? For five (5) of twenty-one (21), the necessary repairs were not made by the landlord within the stipulated 30-day period. For all five (5) of these instances, HRA forwarded a Notification of Failure describing the findings and a reminder that the landlord had 30 days to submit a Certification of Repairs form. ? For two (2) of twenty-one (21), HRA was not able to provide a copy of the Notification of Failure submitted to the landlord to notify them of the failed inspection, reminding the landlord that they had 30 days to submit a Certification of Repairs form. ? For five (5) of twenty-one (21), HRA was not able to provide support noting that the initial inspection failure was dismissed and repairs were no longer necessary. ? For one (1) of twenty-one (21), HRA was not able to provide a copy of the inspection reports completed by a certified inspector. Cause/Effect: While HRA conducts monitoring procedures to help ensure that Housing Quality Standards are maintained and, when necessary, related repairs are performed by the respective landlords within the prescribed 30-day timeframe, we noted the following: ? A comprehensive review and internal control process was not consistently performed and documented to ensure the appropriate evidence was maintained to support the units were compliant with the applicable Housing Quality Standards. ? Necessary repairs were not completed at all, or evidence of the repairs was unable to be provided. Incomplete and/or repairs that do not meet the stipulated completion timeframe could result in landlords not maintaining the appropriate quality of living conditions for tenants and, therefore, not comply with the applicable Housing Quality Standards. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that HRA strengthen its monitoring of landlords in connection with housing quality inspections and determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether to exercise appropriate remedies in accordance with contract provisions or consider documenting its rationale for not doing so. Additionally, we recommend that HRA strengthen their internal controls governing the Housing Quality Standards process, including ensuring that appropriate documentation is maintained to ensure compliance with the Housing Quality Standards.

New York City Human Resources Administration (?HRA?) Finding #: 2022-012 Funding Year(s): 10/19/2017-9/1/2025 HOME Investment Partnerships Program (FAL #14.239) Contract Numbers: M-17-MC-36-0204 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Type of Finding: Allowable Costs and Eligibility - Material Noncompliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: In accordance with 23 CFR sections 1.9, 172.11(a), 420.113(a), and 630.106(a), costs incurred under federal awards are considered allowable and reimbursable when such costs are deemed necessary and reasonable; incurred subsequent to the date of authorization to proceed and in accordance with the conditions contained in the project agreement and the plans specifications; and, not included as costs used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements, among other things. As stipulated by 24 CFR ?92.209, tenant-based rental assistance (?TBRA?) may only be provided to very low- and low-income families. The participating jurisdiction must determine that the family is very low- or low-income before the assistance is provided. During the period of assistance, the participating jurisdiction must annually determine that the family continues to be low-income. Also, the maximum monthly assistance that a participating jurisdiction may pay to, or on behalf of, a family may not exceed the difference between a rent standard for the unit size established by the participating jurisdiction and 30% of the family's monthly adjusted income. Additionally, the participating jurisdiction must disapprove a lease if the rent is not reasonable, based on rents that are charged for comparable unassisted rental units. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of Federal Awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? (the ?Green Book?) 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?) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: The New York City Human Resources Administration (?HRA?) utilizes the Current System to assess beneficiaries? eligibility to receive tenant based rental assistance through the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (?HOME?). To assess eligibility, HRA program staff obtain income supporting documentation to determine if the household met the low-income requirement and to calculate the maximum subsidy amount to be paid by HRA. Additionally, a rent reasonableness valuation is performed which compares the current beneficiary?s rent to other rents charged for comparable units to ensure reasonableness. Upon the completion of the eligibility determination by an HRA staff member, a designated program supervisor reviews and approves the eligibility determination, subsidy amount, and tenant share within Current. We selected a non-statistical sample of forty (40) rental assistance payments made on behalf of tenants during fiscal 2022 and found that twenty-two (22) of the selections had errors as follows: ? For thirteen (13) of the twenty-two (22) selections, HRA was not able to provide documentation to support the participant?s annual income. ? For nine (9) of the twenty-two (22) selections , HRA was also not able to provide the HOME TBRA Certification Information Form, which is utilized to calculate and support HRA?s share of the monthly rent to be paid on behalf of the participant. ? For fourteen (14) of the twenty-two (22) selections, HRA was not able to provide documentation to support that a rent reasonableness assessment was performed. ? For four (4) of the twenty-two (22) selections, it was noted that HRA?s share of monthly rent was determined to be $1,729, $1,778, $1,544, and $235, respectively. However, due to manual input errors, the amounts actually paid on behalf of these tenants were $1,780, $1,762, $1,534, and $176, respectively. ? For one (1) of the twenty-two (22) selections, HRA was unable to provide documentation to support that the eligibility determination and the related calculation was properly reviewed and approved by a supervisor. Total TBRA payments charged to the grant were $5,533,841 and total TBRA benefits subjected to testing were $54,915. Cause/Effect: While HRA has a process in place to assess the eligibility of tenants and calculate the monthly TBRA payments on behalf of those tenants to ensure allowability of costs incurred, a comprehensive review was not consistently performed and documented to ensure the appropriate evidence and related approvals were maintained to support those determinations and calculations. As a result, costs were incurred on behalf of certain tenants that may not have met the eligibility requirements, or an incorrect amount may have been paid on their behalf. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs totaled $18,240. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2021-011, included on pages 249 and 250 of the Fiscal 2021 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend that HRA strengthen their internal controls governing the eligibility determination process, including creating a comprehensive review checklist to ensure each tenant meets every eligibility requirement and HRA?s portion of the TBRA payments are properly calculated, and that appropriate supervisory review and approval is consistently performed and documented prior to processing payments and charging costs to the grant.

New York City Human Resources Administration (?HRA?) Finding #: 2022-013 Funding Year(s): 7/1/2021 ? 6/30/2022 Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) (FAL #14.241) Contract Numbers: NYH21F002; NYH22F002 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Type of Finding: Eligibility - Material Noncompliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: As stipulated by 24 CFR Section 574.3, to be eligible to receive HOPWA funded benefits, a participant must be diagnosed with an acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or related diseases and be a low-income individual, as determined by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. HRA utilizes the household income of eligible participants to calculate the monthly rental assistance payment to be made on their behalf. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of Federal Awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? (the ?Green Book?) 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?) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: We noted that certain rental assistance payments were calculated using an incorrect household income amount. From a non-statistical sample of forty (40) rental assistance payments made on behalf of tenants during FY2022 that were selected for testing, we identified five (5) exceptions, as follows: ? For one (1) of the selections, HRA utilized household income that was higher than their actual income, which caused HRA?s monthly rental assistance payment for the selected period to be less than it should have been. ? For four (4) of the selections, HRA utilized household income that was lower than their actual income, which caused HRA?s monthly rental assistance payment for the selected period to be higher than it should have been. The excess payments for these selections totaled $88. Total rental assistance payments charged to the grant were $20,870,225 and total HOPWA rent subsidies subjected to testing were $51,878. Cause/Effect: While HRA has a process in place to assess the eligibility of tenants and calculate the monthly rental assistance payments to be made on their behalf, they did not consistently ensure that the household income utilized to calculate the monthly rental assistance payment was accurate. As a result, an incorrect monthly rental assistance amount was paid on behalf of certain tenants. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs totaled $88. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2021-012, included on pages 251 and 252 of the Fiscal 2021 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend that HRA strengthen their internal controls governing the eligibility process, including ensuring the household income utilized to calculate the monthly rental assistance amount is accurate prior to processing payments and charging costs to the grant.

New York City Human Resources Administration (?HRA?) Finding #: 2022-014 Funding Year(s): 4/1/2021 ? 3/31/2023 Housing Opportunities for Persons with Aids (FAL #14.241) Contract Numbers: NYH21F002; NYH22F002 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Type of Finding: Special Tests and Provisions - Compliance and Internal Control (Significant Deficiency) Criteria: All housing that is assisted under specific HOPWA activities per CFR sections 574.300(b) (3), (4), (5), and (8) must meet specific applicable Housing Quality Standards (?HQS?) as outlined in 24 CFR section 574.310(b) determined by on-site inspections. On May 22, 2020 HUD waived the physical inspection requirement for acquisition, rehabilitation, conversion, lease, or repair; new construction of single room occupancy dwellings and community residences; project or tenant-based rental assistance; or operating costs through March 31, 2022, so long as grantees or project sponsors can visually inspect the unit using technology, such as video streaming, to ensure the unit meets HQS before any assistance is provided; and the grantee or project sponsor has written policies that require physical reinspection of the units not previously physically inspected by June 30, 2022. This waiver applied to units where initial eligibility to receive rental assistance was determined during the fiscal year. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of Federal Awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? (the ?Green Book?) 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?) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: Prior to providing rental assistance to landlords, HRA conducts on-site inspections to ensure each unit meets all applicable Housing Quality Standards. During each inspection, a HRA Case Manager would assign a Quality Assurance (?QA? Inspector to complete an inspection checklist, which outlines each standard and documents if the unit passed or failed each requirement. The QA Inspector would sign off on the report and provide it to the landlord, noting if any repairs are required. In addition to the initial annual inspection, if there were any adverse findings identified, the Case Manager would conduct follow-up visits for that unit until the findings were remediated. If an on-site inspection was unable to be conducted prior to March 31, 2022, a virtual inspection was performed by a QA Inspector via video call. Similarly, an inspection checklist would be completed for the virtual inspection and the QA Inspector would sign off on the checklist and provide a copy to the landlord. Any repairs needed would be followed up on by the Case Manager until all corrections were implemented. After March 31, 2022, HRA would then ensure a physical inspection was conducted prior to June 30, 2022. In accordance with the individual agreements between HRA and the landlords of the units receiving the rental assistance, the landlords are responsible for maintaining compliance with the HQS, and the HRA inspections are conducted to help ensure the respective landlords are maintaining compliance. We selected a non-statistical sample of nineteen (19) units that were subject to an initial inspection by HRA during fiscal 2022 and noted that for three (3) selections, HRA was unable to provide a copy of the inspection checklist that was completed by the QA Inspector prior to assistance being provided for the unit. Cause/Effect: While HRA conducts monitoring procedures to help ensure that Housing Quality Standards are maintained and, when necessary, related repairs are performed by the respective landlords within the prescribed 30-day timeframe, we noted that the inspection checklists used to document such procedures were not consistently maintained. If controls aren?t in place to ensure each unit is properly inspected in accordance with the guidelines and HRA?s policies, there is a risk that some units may not meet the appropriate quality of living conditions for tenants and, therefore, not comply with the applicable Housing Quality Standards. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that HRA strengthen their internal controls governing the Housing Quality Standards inspection process, including that appropriate documentation is maintained for each inspection performed, to ensure compliance with the requirements is met for each unit under their supervision.

New York City Human Resources Administration (?HRA?) and Administration for Children?s Services (?ACS?) Finding #: 2022-015 Funding Year(s): 10/1/2020-9/30/2022 Child Care and Development Block Grant (FAL #93.575) Contract Numbers: 21-OCFS-LCM-19, 22-OCFS-LCM-08 Pass-Through Agency: NYS Office of Children and Family Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Type of Finding: Allowable Costs and Eligibility - Material Noncompliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: In accordance with 23 CFR sections 1.9, 172.11(a), 420.113(a), and 630.106(a), costs incurred under federal awards are considered allowable and reimbursable when such costs are deemed necessary and reasonable; incurred subsequent to the date of authorization to proceed and in accordance with the conditions contained in the project agreement and the plans specifications; and, not included as costs used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements, among other things. As stipulated by the 45 CFR Part 98 Subpart C, to be eligible for services under the Child Care and Development Block Grant (?CCDBG?), a child shall (1) be under the age of thirteen (13) years of age or be under the age of nineteen (19) and physically or mentally incapable of caring for himself or herself; (2) Reside with a family whose income does not exceed 85 percent of the State's median income (SMI) and whose family assets do not exceed $1,000,000; and (3) reside with a parent or parents who are working or attending a job training or educational program; or receive, or need to receive, protective services. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of Federal Awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? (the ?Green Book?) 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?) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: We selected a non-statistical sample of sixty-five (65) individuals who received services under CCDBG during FY2022 and found that four (4) of the individuals tested had errors as follows: ? Two (2) of the individuals tested from HRA and one (1) of the individuals tested from ACS not meet some or all of the eligibility criteria as stipulated in 45 CFR Part 98 Subpart C ? For one (1) of the individuals, ACS was not able to provide documentation to support that the individual met all the eligibility criteria as stipulated in 45 CFR Part 98 Subpart C Total CCDBG Benefits charged to the grant were $276,786,114 and total CCDBG benefits subjected to testing were $48,752. Cause/Effect: While HRA and ACS have a process in place to assess the eligibility of children, a comprehensive review was not consistently performed and documented to ensure the appropriate evidence and related approvals were maintained to support those determinations. As a result, costs were incurred on behalf of certain children that did not meet all of the eligibility requirements. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $2,419. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that HRA and ACS strengthen their internal controls governing the eligibility requirements, including implementing a review checklist to ensure the child meets every eligibility requirement per 45 CFR Part 98 Subpart C during the eligibility determination process.

New York City Department for the Aging (?DFTA?) Finding #: 2022-016 Funding Year(s): 07/01/2021 - 06/30/2022 New York City Department for the Aging: Aging Cluster (FAL #93.044, 93.045 & 93.053) Contract Number: N/A Pass-Through Agency: New York State Office for the Aging Type of Finding: Subrecipient Monitoring Compliance and Internal Control (Significant Deficiency) Criteria: The subrecipient monitoring requirements of 2 CFR 200.332(a)(1) stipulate that pass-through entities include specific Federal award information within sub-award contracts. Such information, among other things, should include: i. Subrecipient?s unique identifying number; ii. Federal Award Identification Number; iii. Federal Award Date of award to City Agency by the Federal agency; iv. Name of Federal awarding agency; and v. Assistance Listing title Condition/Context: Of the forty (40) subrecipient contracts under the Aging Cluster that were selected for testing, none of the contracts included any of the data points described above (i.-v.) in accordance with 2 CFR 200.332(a)(1). Cause/Effect: While DFTA has established subrecipient monitoring procedures, such procedures did not adequately contemplate all of the required elements and/or data points necessary to be included in all of their respective subrecipient agreements. Missing or incomplete required data elements could result in subrecipients not having sufficient information to appropriately comply with Uniform Guidance reporting and/or other program specific compliance requirements. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is similar to finding #2021-005 included on pages 236 through 237 of the of the Fiscal 2021 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend that DFTA create a comprehensive internal control structure which ensures that all subrecipient compliance requirements are being met, including a review of all subrecipient contracts and related amendments, to ensure every subrecipient agreement contains all of the required information stipulated by 2 CFR 200.332(a)(1).

New York City Department of Education (?DOE?) Finding #: 2021-001 Funding Year(s): 9/1/2019-8/31/2021 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies (FAL #84.010) Contract Numbers: 0R1251H01, 0R4507M01, 0R4512H01, 0R4525K01, 0R4527B01, 0R4532L01, 0R4551H01, 0R4551J01 Career & Technical Education - Basic Grants to States (FAL #84.048) Contract Numbers: 0R0551A01 Twenty-First Century Community Learning Centers (FAL #84.287) Contract Numbers: 0R3901A01, 0R3902A01, 0R3906A01, 0R3910A01, 0R3915A01, 0R3921A01, 0R3923A01, 0R3930A01 English Language Acquisition Grants (FAL #84.365) Contract Number: 0R4151C01, 0R4164A01 Student Support and Academic Enrichment (FAL #84.424) Contract Numbers: 0R1951A01, 0R1964A01 Pass-Through Agency: New York State Department of Education Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Type of Finding: Reporting Compliance Criteria: As stipulated by the New York State Education Department (?NYSED?) Fiscal Guidelines for Federal and State Grants, program recipients are required to submit to NYSED a signed copy of the Final Expenditure Report for a Federal Project (?FS-10F?) within 90 days following the end of the grant award period. Condition/Context: Of the seventy-one (71) FS-10F reports submitted by the DOE during fiscal year 2021, we selected a sample of twenty-one (21) FS-10F reports and found that all of the reports tested were submitted after the required due date, as follows: ? Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies (FAL #84.010): of the eight (8) FS-10F reports tested, such reports were submitted between 16 and 163 days late. ? Career & Technical Education - Basic Grants to States (FAL #84.048): the one (1) FS-10F report tested was submitted 29 days late. ? Twenty-First Century Community Learning Centers (FAL #84.287): of the eight (8) FS-10F reports tested, such reports were submitted between 98 and 165 days late. ? English Language Acquisition Grants (FAL #84.365): of the two (2) FS-10F reports tested, such reports were submitted between 99 and 117 days late. ? Student Support and Academic Enrichment (FAL #84.424): of the two (2) FS-10F reports tested, such reports were submitted between 103 and 197 days late. Cause/Effect: We were informed that due to open encumbrances which had not been fully liquidated by the FS-10F due date, the DOE was unable to complete and submit the FS-10F financial reports within the stipulated 90-day period, thus resulting in late-filed reports. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2020-001, included on pages 200 and 201 of the Fiscal 2020 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend the DOE consider establishing procedures and operational practices whereby disposition of open encumbrances is accelerated such that all FS-10F expenditure reports are prepared and submitted within the required 90-day timeframe.

Finding #: 2021-002 Funding Year(s): 3/13/2020-9/30/2023 Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) (FAL #84.425D) Contract Number: 5891210001 Pass-Through Agency: New York State Department of Education Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Type of Finding: Allowable Cost - Compliance and Internal Control (Significant Deficiency) Criteria: In accordance with 23 CFR sections 1.9, 172.11(a), 420.113(a), and 630.106(a), costs incurred under federal awards are considered allowable and reimbursable when such costs are deemed necessary and reasonable; incurred subsequent to the date of authorization to proceed and in accordance with the conditions contained in the project agreement and the plans specifications; and, not included as costs used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements, among other things. Condition/Context: From a non-statistical sample of sixty-five (65) salary charges subject to testing, we identified four (4) exceptions where the payroll costs charged to the grant were in excess of the appropriate amount based on each individuals approved salaries. Total payroll costs charged to the program were $283,990,091; total payroll charges subjected to testing were $214,465; and the calculated error totaled $11,431. Cause/Effect: While the DOE has established policies and procedures to help ensure only allowable costs and activities are charged to the program, certain payroll charges were double the amount of the individuals? approved salaries at the time of the charge. DOE management indicated that such salaries were incorrectly charged during one specific payroll period during the year due to a system error, and the error was not identified until after the incorrect costs were charged to the program. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs totaled $11,431. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding Recommendation: We recommend that the DOE strengthen controls over the calculation of payroll costs charged to federal awards, including ensuring such calculations are properly documented and reviewed prior to processing payments to employees and charging costs to the grant.

Finding #: 2021-003 Funding Year(s): 7/1/2020-6/30/2021 Port Security Grant Program (FAL #97.056) Contract Number: EMW-2015-PU-APP-00314, EMW-2016-PU-00322, EMW-2017-PU-00122 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Type of Finding: Equipment and Real Property Management - Compliance and Internal Control (Control Deficiency) Criteria: As stipulated by 2 CFR sections 200.313(d)(2), a physical inventory of property and equipment acquired under a federal award must be taken, and the results reconciled with the property records, at least once every two years. Condition/Context: The New York City Police Department (?NYPD?) utilizes the Grants Tracking System (?GTS?), a citywide web-based inventory program, designed to standardize the tracking of federally funded equipment. Further, NYPD Command-designated grants coordinators are responsible for monitoring the equipment and updating the inventory on a periodic basis in accordance with federal guidelines. The NYPD Grants Unit periodically generates an inventory listing from GTS that includes the biennial inventory count due date for each item and distributes it to the assigned NYPD Command designated grant coordinators to ensure the inventory count is conducted timely and in accordance with federal requirements. After the completion of biennial inventory count, the NYPD Command-designated grants coordinators update the inventory count information to GTS. From a judgmentally selected sample of twenty-two (22) pieces of equipment subjected to testing, we identified five (5) items where the NYPD Command-designated grants coordinators did not conduct the physical inventory count within the required two-year period. Cause/Effect: While NYPD has policies and procedures in place to identify the biennial inventory count due dates and perform inventory counts within the required timeframe, we noted that required inventory counts were not consistently completed within the stipulated timeframe. Inventory counts that are not completed within the required timeframe could result in federally funded equipment being inaccurately recorded on the inventory records and not discovered and corrected timely. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2020-004, included on pages 206 through 207 of the Fiscal 2020 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend that NYPD strengthen controls over the inventory process to ensure biennial inventory counts are consistently performed over all equipment within the required timeframe.

Finding #: 2021-004 Funding Year(s): 7/1/2020-6/30/2021 Port Security Grant Program (FAL #97.056) Contract Number: EMW-2015-PU-00128-S01 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Type of Finding: Equipment and Real Property Management - Compliance and Internal Control (Control Deficiency) Criteria: As stipulated by 2 CFR sections 200.313(d)(2), a physical inventory of property and equipment acquired under a federal award must be taken, and the results reconciled with the property records, at least once every two years. Condition/Context: The New York City Fire Department (?FDNY?) utilizes the Grants Tracking System (?GTS?), a citywide web-based inventory program, designed to standardize the tracking of federally funded equipment. FDNY program managers are responsible for monitoring the equipment and updating the inventory on a periodic basis in accordance with federal guidelines. Each quarter, the FDNY Grant Asset Management Unit generates an inventory listing from GTS that includes the biennial inventory count due date for each item and distributes it to the assigned FDNY program managers to ensure the inventory count is conducted timely and in accordance with federal requirements. After the completion of the biennial inventory count, the program managers update the inventory count information to GTS. From a judgmentally selected sample of eighteen (18) pieces of equipment subjected to testing, we identified one (1) item where FDNY did not conduct the physical inventory count within the required two-year period. Cause/Effect: While FDNY has policies and procedures in place to identify the biennial inventory count due dates and perform inventory counts within the required timeframe, we noted that required inventory counts were not consistently completed within the stipulated timeframe. FDNY management indicated that the inventory counts were delayed due to staffing constraints that were caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Inventory counts that are not completed within the required timeframe could result in federally funded equipment being inaccurately recorded on the inventory records and not discovered and corrected timely. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2020-005, included on pages 208 through 209 of the Fiscal 2020 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend that FDNY supplement its current controls over the inventory process to include policies and procedures that address circumstances caused by extraordinary events such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Finding #: 2021-005 Funding Year(s): 07/01/2020 - 06/30/2021 New York City Department for the Aging: Aging Cluster (FAL #93.044, 93.045 & 93.053) Contract Number: N/A Pass-Through Agency: New York State Office for the Aging Social Services Block Grant (FAL #93.667) Contract Number: 2001-NYSOSR and 2101-NYSOSR Pass-Through Agency: New York State Office of Children and Family Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Type of Finding: Subrecipient Monitoring Compliance and Internal Control (Significant Deficiency) Criteria: The subrecipient monitoring requirements of 2 CFR 200.332(a)(1) stipulate that pass-through entities include specific Federal award information within sub-award contracts. Such information, among other things, should include: i. Subrecipient?s unique identifying number; ii. Federal Award Identification Number; iii. Federal Award Date of award to City Agency by the Federal agency; iv. Name of Federal awarding agency; and v. Assistance Listing title Additionally, per 2 CFR 200.332(f) pass-through entities should verify that every subrecipient that expends $750,000 or more in Federal awards during their fiscal year has a single or program-specific audit conducted for that fiscal year in accordance with 2 CFR 200.501. Condition/Context: Of the forty (40) subrecipient contracts under the Aging Cluster and forty (40) subrecipient contracts under ALN #93.667 that were selected for testing, none of the contracts included any of the data points described above (i.-v.) in accordance with 2 CFR 200.332(a)(1). Additionally, for seventeen (18) subrecipients under the Aging Cluster and twenty (20) subrecipients under ALN #93.667, DFTA did not obtain evidence that the subrecipient had a single audit conducted during the most recent fiscal year, and did not verify that the subrecipient did not meet the threshold which would require such audit to be completed in accordance with 2 CFR 200.501. Cause/Effect: While DFTA has established subrecipient monitoring procedures, such procedures did not adequately contemplate all of the required elements and/or data points necessary to be included in all of their respective subrecipient agreements. Missing or incomplete required data elements could result in subrecipients not having sufficient information to appropriately comply with Uniform Guidance reporting and/or other program specific compliance requirements. Additionally, DFTA did not have procedures in place to either ensure that any subrecipient that met the applicable threshold provides their most recent single audit report, or to verify that the subrecipient did not meet the threshold and therefore submission of the single audit report is not applicable. Without each subrecipients? single audit report, DFTA may not have the appropriate amount of information to properly evaluate each subrecipients? risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring procedures to be followed for each subrecipient. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that DFTA create a comprehensive internal control structure which ensures that all subrecipient compliance requirements are being met, including a review of all subrecipient contracts and related amendments, to ensure every subrecipient agreement contains all of the required information stipulated by 2 CFR 200.332(a)(1), as well as ensuring that they either collect the most recent single audit report from each subrecipient, or if it is not provided, that DFTA appropriately verifies with the subrecipient that the entity did not expend $750,000 or more of federal awards within the respective fiscal year.

Finding #: 2021-006 Funding Year(s): 10/1/2019-9/30/2021 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (FAL #93.558) Contract Numbers: 21-ADM-03, 20-ADM-11 Pass-Through Agency: NYS Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Type of Finding: Eligibility Material Noncompliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: As stipulated by the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (?NYSOTDA?) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Plan and Executive Certification, the categories of persons who may be eligible for TANF benefits include households containing individuals less than 18 years of age, 18-year-olds regularly attending school at the secondary level and women with no children who have a medically verified pregnancy. Additionally, the amount of assets that a family may own and qualify for TANF financial assistance is $2,000, except for households in which any member is age 60 or over in which case $3,000 in assets can be owned. Condition/Context: We selected a non-statistical sample of forty (40) households who received TANF benefits during FY2021 and found that five (5) of the households tested had errors as follows: ? Two (2) of the households did not contain an individual less than 18 years or age, an 18-year-old regularly attending school at the secondary level or a woman with no children who had a medically verified pregnancy, making these households ineligible for TANF funded benefits. ? Per review of the Welfare Management System Bank Match for the household, it was noted that three (3) of the households had assets over $2,000, with no members over the age of 60. In addition, HRA failed to follow-up and verify the resources for the respective household at the time of the eligibility review process. Total TANF Benefits charged to the grant were $523,117,263 and total TANF benefits subjected to testing were $6,579. Cause/Effect: While HRA has established eligibility determination procedures, we noted oversights in the review of the household?s eligibility, where bank statements and age of the household members were not reviewed during the eligibility redetermination process. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $786. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that HRA strengthen their internal controls governing the eligibility requirements, including implementing a review checklist to ensure the household meets every eligibility requirement per the NYSOTDA TANF Plan and Executive Certification during the redetermination process.

Finding #: 2021-007 Funding Year(s): 4/1/2020 ? 9/30/2022 Community Services Block Grant (FAL #93.569) Contract Number: T1001807 Pass-Through Agency: State of New York Department of State Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Type of Finding: Eligibility Material Noncompliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: As stipulated by the Community Services Block Grant (?CSBG?) Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (?CARES?) Act Supplemental State Plan, CSBG CARES Act funds may only be used to fund services provided to households with income that is equal to or less than 200 percent of the federal poverty guidelines. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of Federal Awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? (the ?Green Book?) 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?) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: For the period of September 2020 through June 2021, the City provided free day care services for children on days they were scheduled for remote learning because of the COVID-19 pandemic in its Learning Labs program. While participation in Learning Labs was not contingent upon household income, DYCD was responsible for determining the expenditures to be funded by the CSBG CARES Act by identifying those individuals who met the income requirements. We selected a sample of forty (40) individuals who received free day care services during fiscal year 2021 and identified five (5) exceptions, as follows: ? One (1) of the households of the individuals attested to income over 200 percent of the federal poverty guidelines, but was misclassified as low-income resulting in them being incorrectly included in the calculation of related expenditures for CSBG CARES Act funding. ? DYCD did not obtain income information for four (4) of the households of the individuals selected for testing, and therefore did not ensure each household met the income requirements that would make the related expenditures eligible for CSBG CARES Act funding. Additionally, for all forty (40) individuals tested, DYCD was unable to provide documentation to support evidence that a review and approval of income eligibility was performed. Cause/Effect: While DYCD had a process in place to assess eligibility of individuals in the calculation of expenditures for CSBG CARES Act funding, this process did not include the documentation of a comprehensive review to ensure that all information needed to determine eligibility was received and met the requirements. As a result, CSBG CARES Act funding was used to fund services provided to some individuals that may not have met all of the income requirements. Questioned Costs: DYCD determined the amount charged to the grant based on the lesser of (1) the total amount DYCD reimbursed each day care center for program expenditures or (2) DYCD?s calculated CSBG Eligible amount based on days of attendance at each center and the daily cost of attendance. For three (3) of the findings, there are known questioned costs totaling $9,620. For two (2) of the findings, the total amount charged to the grant for the day care center was based on the total of the invoices reimbursed, and not days of attendance. As such, there were no known questioned costs identified for these findings. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that DYCD strengthen their internal controls governing the eligibility determination process, including creating a comprehensive review checklist to ensure each participant meets every eligibility requirement and that appropriate supervisory review and approval is consistently performed and documented.

Finding #: 2021-008 Funding Year(s): 3/1/2020 ? 12/30/2021 Coronavirus Relief Fund (FAL #21.019) Contract Numbers: N/A Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Treasury Type of Finding: Reporting Material Noncompliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: As stipulated by the Department of Treasury (?DOT?) Coronavirus Relief Fund Prime Recipient Quarterly Grant Solutions Submissions Closeout Procedures Guide, recipients are required to submit a report detailing COVID-19 related obligations and expenditures incurred during the covered period to the DOT through the GrantSolutions portal on a quarterly basis, no later than ten days after each calendar quarter. Condition/Context: Of the two (2) quarterly reports selected for testing, we found the following: ? The report for the period of October 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020 was not submitted ? The report for the period of January 1, 2021 through March 31, 2021 was submitted 80 days after the extended due date Cause/Effect: OMB did not have processes and controls in place to ensure that the required reports were accurately completed and submitted on a timely basis. This resulted in OMB missing the filing window and failing to submit their December 31, 2020 report. Additionally, OMB did not submit the March 31, 2021 report within the stipulated 10-day period due to an error within their report that prevented the report from being submitted in the GrantSolutions portal. The Department of Treasury (?DOT?) provided OMB with a nine day extension and provided instruction to OMB to fix the error within the extension period. OMB made the correction and submitted the report 80 days after the extended due date. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding Recommendation: We recommend that the OMB establish procedures and implement appropriate internal controls over the reporting process to ensure all quarterly reports are prepared accurately, properly reviewed and submitted within the required 10-day timeframe.

Finding #: 2021-009 Funding Year(s): 3/3/2021 ? 12/31/2024 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (FAL #21.027) Contract Numbers: N/A Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Treasury Type of Finding: Period of Performance Material Noncompliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: As stipulated by the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) Interim Final Rule, a recipient may only use funds to cover costs incurred during the period beginning March 3, 2021 through December 31, 2024. Condition/Context: Prior to performing our period of performance testing, OMB identified $3,504,131 of non-payroll expenditures that were charged to the CSLFRF grant that were incurred prior to March 3, 2021. After excluding the $3,504,131 of expenditures from the total population of non-payroll expenditures charged to the CSLFRF grant, we selected a non-statistical sample of forty (40) non-payroll expenditures that were incurred during the first month of the period of performance for testing and did not identify any additional instances of noncompliance. Total non-payroll expenditures charged to the grant were $268,575,678 and total non-payroll expenditures subjected to testing were $1,925,830. In addition, we selected a non-statistical sample of forty (40) payroll expenditures that were incurred during the first month of the period of performance for testing and identified twenty-five (25) exceptions due to the fact that some of the payroll costs were incurred prior to March 3, 2021. Total payroll costs charged to the program were $696,282,901; total payroll charges subjected to testing were $69,796; and, the payroll charges incurred prior to March 3, 2021 were $16,077. Cause/Effect: We were informed that to determine the expenditures that were allowed to be charged to the CSLFRF grant, OMB utilized the date the expenditure was recorded within the general ledger, rather than the date the underlying expenditure was incurred. Because OMB did not have appropriate controls in place to ensure expenditures were incurred within the applicable period of performance, expenditures totaling $3,520,208, as identified above, were incorrectly charged to the program. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $3,520,208. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that the OMB establish internal control policies and procedures to ensure that only expenditures incurred within the applicable period of performance are charged to the federal program.

Finding #: 2021-010 Funding Year(s): 07/01/2020 - 06/30/2021 New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene: Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (FAL #14.241) Contract Number: N/A Pass-Through Agency: N/A Federal Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development Type of Finding: Subrecipient Monitoring Compliance and Internal Control (Significant Deficiency) Criteria: The subrecipient monitoring requirements of 2 CFR 200.332(a)(1) stipulate that pass-through entities include specific Federal award information within sub-award contracts. Such information, among other things, should include: i. Subrecipient's unique entity identifier; ii. Federal Award Identification Number; iii. Federal Award Date of award to the City Agency by the Federal agency; iv. Name of Federal awarding agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the Pass-through entity; v. Assistance Listings number and Title vi. Indirect cost rate for the Federal award Condition/Context: Of the five (5) subrecipient contracts selected for testing, none of the contracts included any of the data points described above (i. ? vi.) in accordance with 2 CFR 200.332(a)(1). Cause/Effect: While DOHMH has established subrecipient monitoring procedures, such procedures did not adequately contemplate all of the required elements and/or data points necessary to be included in all of their respective subrecipient agreements. Missing or incomplete required data elements could result in subrecipients not having sufficient information to appropriately comply with Uniform Guidance reporting and/or other program specific compliance requirements. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that DOHMH create a comprehensive internal control structure which ensures that all subrecipient compliance requirements are being met, including a review of all subrecipient contracts and related amendments, to ensure every subrecipient agreement contains all of the required information stipulated by 2 CFR 200.332(a)(1).

Finding #: 2021-011 Funding Year(s): 10/19/2017-9/1/2025 HOME Investment Partnerships Program (FAL #14.239) Contract Numbers: M-17-MC-36-0204 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Type of Finding: Allowable Costs and Eligibility - Material Noncompliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: In accordance with 23 CFR sections 1.9, 172.11(a), 420.113(a), and 630.106(a), costs incurred under federal awards are considered allowable and reimbursable when such costs are deemed necessary and reasonable; incurred subsequent to the date of authorization to proceed and in accordance with the conditions contained in the project agreement and the plans specifications; and, not included as costs used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements, among other things. As stipulated by 24 CFR ?92.209, tenant-based rental assistance (TBRA) may only be provided to very low- and low-income families. The participating jurisdiction must determine that the family is very low- or low-income before the assistance is provided. During the period of assistance, the participating jurisdiction must annually determine that the family continues to be low-income. Also, the maximum monthly assistance that a participating jurisdiction may pay to, or on behalf of, a family may not exceed the difference between a rent standard for the unit size established by the participating jurisdiction and 30 percent of the family's monthly adjusted income. Additionally, the participating jurisdiction must disapprove a lease if the rent is not reasonable, based on rents that are charged for comparable unassisted rental units. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of Federal Awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? (the ?Green Book?) 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?) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: The New York City Human Resources Administration (?HRA?) utilizes the Housing Assistance Payment System (?HAPS?) to assess beneficiaries? eligibility to receive tenant based rental assistance through the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (?HOME?). To assess eligibility, HRA program staff obtain income supporting documentation to determine if the household met the low-income requirement and to calculate the maximum subsidy amount to be paid by HRA. Additionally, a rent reasonableness valuation is performed which compares the current beneficiary?s rental amount to rents charged for comparable units to ensure reasonableness of the rent. Upon the completion of the eligibility determination by an HRA staff member, a designated program supervisor reviews and approves the eligibility determination, subsidy amount, and tenant share within HAPS. We selected a non-statistical sample of forty (40) rental assistance payments made on behalf of tenants during FY2021 and found that twenty-two (22) of the selections had errors as follows: ? For twenty-two (22) of the selections, HRA was not able to provide documentation to support the participant?s annual income. Further, for eight (8) of the twenty-two (22), HRA was also not able to provide the HOME TBRA Certification Information Form, which is utilized to calculate and support HRA?s share of the monthly rent to be paid on behalf of the participant. ? For nine (9) of the selections, HRA was not able to provide documentation to support that a rent reasonableness assessment was performed. ? For one (1) selection, it was noted that HRA?s share of monthly rent was determined to be $760, however, due to a manual input error, the amount actually paid on behalf of the tenant was $785. ? For two (2) of the selections, HRA was not able to provide documentation to support that the eligibility determination and the related calculation was properly reviewed and approved by a supervisor. Total TBRA payments charged to the grant were $4,994,185 and total TBRA benefits subjected to testing were $51,659. Cause/Effect: While HRA has a process in place to assess the eligibility of tenants and calculate the monthly TBRA payments on behalf of those tenants to ensure allowability of costs incurred, a comprehensive review was not consistently performed and documented to ensure the appropriate evidence and related approvals were maintained to support those determinations and calculations. As a result, unallowable costs were incurred on behalf of certain tenants that may not have met all of the eligibility requirements, or an incorrect amount may have been paid on their behalf. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs totaled $26,674. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding Recommendation: We recommend that HRA strengthen their internal controls governing the eligibility determination process, including creating a comprehensive review checklist to ensure each tenant meets every eligibility requirement and HRA?s portion of the TBRA payments are properly calculated, and that appropriate supervisory review and approval is consistently performed and documented prior to processing payments and charging costs to the grant.

Finding #: 2021-012 Funding Year(s): 7/1/2020 ? 6/30/2021 Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) (FAL #14.241) Contract Numbers: NYH20F002; NYH21F002 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Type of Finding: Eligibility - Material Noncompliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: As stipulated by 24 CFR Section 574.3, to be eligible to receive HOPWA funded benefits, a participant must be diagnosed with an acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or related diseases and be a low-income individual, as determined by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. HRA utilizes the household income of eligible participants to calculate the monthly rental assistance payment to be made on their behalf. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of Federal Awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? (the ?Green Book?) 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?) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: We noted that certain rental assistance payments were calculated using an incorrect household income amount. From a non-statistical sample of forty (40) rental assistance payments made on behalf of tenants during FY2021 that were selected for testing, we identified twelve (12) exceptions, as follows: ? For three (3) of the selections, HRA utilized household income that was higher than their actual income, which caused HRA?s monthly rental assistance payment for the selected period to be less than it should have been. ? For nine (9) of the selections, HRA utilized household income that was lower than their actual income, which caused HRA?s monthly rental assistance payment for the selected period to be higher than it should have been. The excess payments for these selections totaled $1,713. Total rental assistance payments charged to the grant were $16,631,091 and total HOPWA rent subsidies subjected to testing were $52,598. Cause/Effect: While HRA has a process in place to assess the eligibility of tenants and calculate the monthly rental assistance payments to be made on their behalf, they did not consistently ensure that the household income utilized to calculate the monthly rental assistance payment was accurate. As a result, an incorrect monthly rental assistance amount was paid on behalf of certain tenants. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs totaled $1,713 Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding Recommendation: We recommend that HRA strengthen their internal controls governing the eligibility process, including ensuring the household income utilized to calculate the monthly rental assistance amount is accurate prior to processing payments and charging costs to the grant.

New York City Department of Education (?DOE?) Finding #: 2021-001 Funding Year(s): 9/1/2019-8/31/2021 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies (FAL #84.010) Contract Numbers: 0R1251H01, 0R4507M01, 0R4512H01, 0R4525K01, 0R4527B01, 0R4532L01, 0R4551H01, 0R4551J01 Career & Technical Education - Basic Grants to States (FAL #84.048) Contract Numbers: 0R0551A01 Twenty-First Century Community Learning Centers (FAL #84.287) Contract Numbers: 0R3901A01, 0R3902A01, 0R3906A01, 0R3910A01, 0R3915A01, 0R3921A01, 0R3923A01, 0R3930A01 English Language Acquisition Grants (FAL #84.365) Contract Number: 0R4151C01, 0R4164A01 Student Support and Academic Enrichment (FAL #84.424) Contract Numbers: 0R1951A01, 0R1964A01 Pass-Through Agency: New York State Department of Education Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Type of Finding: Reporting Compliance Criteria: As stipulated by the New York State Education Department (?NYSED?) Fiscal Guidelines for Federal and State Grants, program recipients are required to submit to NYSED a signed copy of the Final Expenditure Report for a Federal Project (?FS-10F?) within 90 days following the end of the grant award period. Condition/Context: Of the seventy-one (71) FS-10F reports submitted by the DOE during fiscal year 2021, we selected a sample of twenty-one (21) FS-10F reports and found that all of the reports tested were submitted after the required due date, as follows: ? Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies (FAL #84.010): of the eight (8) FS-10F reports tested, such reports were submitted between 16 and 163 days late. ? Career & Technical Education - Basic Grants to States (FAL #84.048): the one (1) FS-10F report tested was submitted 29 days late. ? Twenty-First Century Community Learning Centers (FAL #84.287): of the eight (8) FS-10F reports tested, such reports were submitted between 98 and 165 days late. ? English Language Acquisition Grants (FAL #84.365): of the two (2) FS-10F reports tested, such reports were submitted between 99 and 117 days late. ? Student Support and Academic Enrichment (FAL #84.424): of the two (2) FS-10F reports tested, such reports were submitted between 103 and 197 days late. Cause/Effect: We were informed that due to open encumbrances which had not been fully liquidated by the FS-10F due date, the DOE was unable to complete and submit the FS-10F financial reports within the stipulated 90-day period, thus resulting in late-filed reports. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2020-001, included on pages 200 and 201 of the Fiscal 2020 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend the DOE consider establishing procedures and operational practices whereby disposition of open encumbrances is accelerated such that all FS-10F expenditure reports are prepared and submitted within the required 90-day timeframe.

Finding #: 2021-002 Funding Year(s): 3/13/2020-9/30/2023 Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) (FAL #84.425D) Contract Number: 5891210001 Pass-Through Agency: New York State Department of Education Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Type of Finding: Allowable Cost - Compliance and Internal Control (Significant Deficiency) Criteria: In accordance with 23 CFR sections 1.9, 172.11(a), 420.113(a), and 630.106(a), costs incurred under federal awards are considered allowable and reimbursable when such costs are deemed necessary and reasonable; incurred subsequent to the date of authorization to proceed and in accordance with the conditions contained in the project agreement and the plans specifications; and, not included as costs used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements, among other things. Condition/Context: From a non-statistical sample of sixty-five (65) salary charges subject to testing, we identified four (4) exceptions where the payroll costs charged to the grant were in excess of the appropriate amount based on each individuals approved salaries. Total payroll costs charged to the program were $283,990,091; total payroll charges subjected to testing were $214,465; and the calculated error totaled $11,431. Cause/Effect: While the DOE has established policies and procedures to help ensure only allowable costs and activities are charged to the program, certain payroll charges were double the amount of the individuals? approved salaries at the time of the charge. DOE management indicated that such salaries were incorrectly charged during one specific payroll period during the year due to a system error, and the error was not identified until after the incorrect costs were charged to the program. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs totaled $11,431. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding Recommendation: We recommend that the DOE strengthen controls over the calculation of payroll costs charged to federal awards, including ensuring such calculations are properly documented and reviewed prior to processing payments to employees and charging costs to the grant.

Finding #: 2021-003 Funding Year(s): 7/1/2020-6/30/2021 Port Security Grant Program (FAL #97.056) Contract Number: EMW-2015-PU-APP-00314, EMW-2016-PU-00322, EMW-2017-PU-00122 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Type of Finding: Equipment and Real Property Management - Compliance and Internal Control (Control Deficiency) Criteria: As stipulated by 2 CFR sections 200.313(d)(2), a physical inventory of property and equipment acquired under a federal award must be taken, and the results reconciled with the property records, at least once every two years. Condition/Context: The New York City Police Department (?NYPD?) utilizes the Grants Tracking System (?GTS?), a citywide web-based inventory program, designed to standardize the tracking of federally funded equipment. Further, NYPD Command-designated grants coordinators are responsible for monitoring the equipment and updating the inventory on a periodic basis in accordance with federal guidelines. The NYPD Grants Unit periodically generates an inventory listing from GTS that includes the biennial inventory count due date for each item and distributes it to the assigned NYPD Command designated grant coordinators to ensure the inventory count is conducted timely and in accordance with federal requirements. After the completion of biennial inventory count, the NYPD Command-designated grants coordinators update the inventory count information to GTS. From a judgmentally selected sample of twenty-two (22) pieces of equipment subjected to testing, we identified five (5) items where the NYPD Command-designated grants coordinators did not conduct the physical inventory count within the required two-year period. Cause/Effect: While NYPD has policies and procedures in place to identify the biennial inventory count due dates and perform inventory counts within the required timeframe, we noted that required inventory counts were not consistently completed within the stipulated timeframe. Inventory counts that are not completed within the required timeframe could result in federally funded equipment being inaccurately recorded on the inventory records and not discovered and corrected timely. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2020-004, included on pages 206 through 207 of the Fiscal 2020 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend that NYPD strengthen controls over the inventory process to ensure biennial inventory counts are consistently performed over all equipment within the required timeframe.

Finding #: 2021-004 Funding Year(s): 7/1/2020-6/30/2021 Port Security Grant Program (FAL #97.056) Contract Number: EMW-2015-PU-00128-S01 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Type of Finding: Equipment and Real Property Management - Compliance and Internal Control (Control Deficiency) Criteria: As stipulated by 2 CFR sections 200.313(d)(2), a physical inventory of property and equipment acquired under a federal award must be taken, and the results reconciled with the property records, at least once every two years. Condition/Context: The New York City Fire Department (?FDNY?) utilizes the Grants Tracking System (?GTS?), a citywide web-based inventory program, designed to standardize the tracking of federally funded equipment. FDNY program managers are responsible for monitoring the equipment and updating the inventory on a periodic basis in accordance with federal guidelines. Each quarter, the FDNY Grant Asset Management Unit generates an inventory listing from GTS that includes the biennial inventory count due date for each item and distributes it to the assigned FDNY program managers to ensure the inventory count is conducted timely and in accordance with federal requirements. After the completion of the biennial inventory count, the program managers update the inventory count information to GTS. From a judgmentally selected sample of eighteen (18) pieces of equipment subjected to testing, we identified one (1) item where FDNY did not conduct the physical inventory count within the required two-year period. Cause/Effect: While FDNY has policies and procedures in place to identify the biennial inventory count due dates and perform inventory counts within the required timeframe, we noted that required inventory counts were not consistently completed within the stipulated timeframe. FDNY management indicated that the inventory counts were delayed due to staffing constraints that were caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Inventory counts that are not completed within the required timeframe could result in federally funded equipment being inaccurately recorded on the inventory records and not discovered and corrected timely. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2020-005, included on pages 208 through 209 of the Fiscal 2020 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend that FDNY supplement its current controls over the inventory process to include policies and procedures that address circumstances caused by extraordinary events such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Finding #: 2021-005 Funding Year(s): 07/01/2020 - 06/30/2021 New York City Department for the Aging: Aging Cluster (FAL #93.044, 93.045 & 93.053) Contract Number: N/A Pass-Through Agency: New York State Office for the Aging Social Services Block Grant (FAL #93.667) Contract Number: 2001-NYSOSR and 2101-NYSOSR Pass-Through Agency: New York State Office of Children and Family Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Type of Finding: Subrecipient Monitoring Compliance and Internal Control (Significant Deficiency) Criteria: The subrecipient monitoring requirements of 2 CFR 200.332(a)(1) stipulate that pass-through entities include specific Federal award information within sub-award contracts. Such information, among other things, should include: i. Subrecipient?s unique identifying number; ii. Federal Award Identification Number; iii. Federal Award Date of award to City Agency by the Federal agency; iv. Name of Federal awarding agency; and v. Assistance Listing title Additionally, per 2 CFR 200.332(f) pass-through entities should verify that every subrecipient that expends $750,000 or more in Federal awards during their fiscal year has a single or program-specific audit conducted for that fiscal year in accordance with 2 CFR 200.501. Condition/Context: Of the forty (40) subrecipient contracts under the Aging Cluster and forty (40) subrecipient contracts under ALN #93.667 that were selected for testing, none of the contracts included any of the data points described above (i.-v.) in accordance with 2 CFR 200.332(a)(1). Additionally, for seventeen (18) subrecipients under the Aging Cluster and twenty (20) subrecipients under ALN #93.667, DFTA did not obtain evidence that the subrecipient had a single audit conducted during the most recent fiscal year, and did not verify that the subrecipient did not meet the threshold which would require such audit to be completed in accordance with 2 CFR 200.501. Cause/Effect: While DFTA has established subrecipient monitoring procedures, such procedures did not adequately contemplate all of the required elements and/or data points necessary to be included in all of their respective subrecipient agreements. Missing or incomplete required data elements could result in subrecipients not having sufficient information to appropriately comply with Uniform Guidance reporting and/or other program specific compliance requirements. Additionally, DFTA did not have procedures in place to either ensure that any subrecipient that met the applicable threshold provides their most recent single audit report, or to verify that the subrecipient did not meet the threshold and therefore submission of the single audit report is not applicable. Without each subrecipients? single audit report, DFTA may not have the appropriate amount of information to properly evaluate each subrecipients? risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring procedures to be followed for each subrecipient. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that DFTA create a comprehensive internal control structure which ensures that all subrecipient compliance requirements are being met, including a review of all subrecipient contracts and related amendments, to ensure every subrecipient agreement contains all of the required information stipulated by 2 CFR 200.332(a)(1), as well as ensuring that they either collect the most recent single audit report from each subrecipient, or if it is not provided, that DFTA appropriately verifies with the subrecipient that the entity did not expend $750,000 or more of federal awards within the respective fiscal year.

Finding #: 2021-006 Funding Year(s): 10/1/2019-9/30/2021 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (FAL #93.558) Contract Numbers: 21-ADM-03, 20-ADM-11 Pass-Through Agency: NYS Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Type of Finding: Eligibility Material Noncompliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: As stipulated by the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (?NYSOTDA?) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Plan and Executive Certification, the categories of persons who may be eligible for TANF benefits include households containing individuals less than 18 years of age, 18-year-olds regularly attending school at the secondary level and women with no children who have a medically verified pregnancy. Additionally, the amount of assets that a family may own and qualify for TANF financial assistance is $2,000, except for households in which any member is age 60 or over in which case $3,000 in assets can be owned. Condition/Context: We selected a non-statistical sample of forty (40) households who received TANF benefits during FY2021 and found that five (5) of the households tested had errors as follows: ? Two (2) of the households did not contain an individual less than 18 years or age, an 18-year-old regularly attending school at the secondary level or a woman with no children who had a medically verified pregnancy, making these households ineligible for TANF funded benefits. ? Per review of the Welfare Management System Bank Match for the household, it was noted that three (3) of the households had assets over $2,000, with no members over the age of 60. In addition, HRA failed to follow-up and verify the resources for the respective household at the time of the eligibility review process. Total TANF Benefits charged to the grant were $523,117,263 and total TANF benefits subjected to testing were $6,579. Cause/Effect: While HRA has established eligibility determination procedures, we noted oversights in the review of the household?s eligibility, where bank statements and age of the household members were not reviewed during the eligibility redetermination process. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $786. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that HRA strengthen their internal controls governing the eligibility requirements, including implementing a review checklist to ensure the household meets every eligibility requirement per the NYSOTDA TANF Plan and Executive Certification during the redetermination process.

Finding #: 2021-007 Funding Year(s): 4/1/2020 ? 9/30/2022 Community Services Block Grant (FAL #93.569) Contract Number: T1001807 Pass-Through Agency: State of New York Department of State Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Type of Finding: Eligibility Material Noncompliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: As stipulated by the Community Services Block Grant (?CSBG?) Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (?CARES?) Act Supplemental State Plan, CSBG CARES Act funds may only be used to fund services provided to households with income that is equal to or less than 200 percent of the federal poverty guidelines. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of Federal Awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? (the ?Green Book?) 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?) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: For the period of September 2020 through June 2021, the City provided free day care services for children on days they were scheduled for remote learning because of the COVID-19 pandemic in its Learning Labs program. While participation in Learning Labs was not contingent upon household income, DYCD was responsible for determining the expenditures to be funded by the CSBG CARES Act by identifying those individuals who met the income requirements. We selected a sample of forty (40) individuals who received free day care services during fiscal year 2021 and identified five (5) exceptions, as follows: ? One (1) of the households of the individuals attested to income over 200 percent of the federal poverty guidelines, but was misclassified as low-income resulting in them being incorrectly included in the calculation of related expenditures for CSBG CARES Act funding. ? DYCD did not obtain income information for four (4) of the households of the individuals selected for testing, and therefore did not ensure each household met the income requirements that would make the related expenditures eligible for CSBG CARES Act funding. Additionally, for all forty (40) individuals tested, DYCD was unable to provide documentation to support evidence that a review and approval of income eligibility was performed. Cause/Effect: While DYCD had a process in place to assess eligibility of individuals in the calculation of expenditures for CSBG CARES Act funding, this process did not include the documentation of a comprehensive review to ensure that all information needed to determine eligibility was received and met the requirements. As a result, CSBG CARES Act funding was used to fund services provided to some individuals that may not have met all of the income requirements. Questioned Costs: DYCD determined the amount charged to the grant based on the lesser of (1) the total amount DYCD reimbursed each day care center for program expenditures or (2) DYCD?s calculated CSBG Eligible amount based on days of attendance at each center and the daily cost of attendance. For three (3) of the findings, there are known questioned costs totaling $9,620. For two (2) of the findings, the total amount charged to the grant for the day care center was based on the total of the invoices reimbursed, and not days of attendance. As such, there were no known questioned costs identified for these findings. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that DYCD strengthen their internal controls governing the eligibility determination process, including creating a comprehensive review checklist to ensure each participant meets every eligibility requirement and that appropriate supervisory review and approval is consistently performed and documented.

Finding #: 2021-008 Funding Year(s): 3/1/2020 ? 12/30/2021 Coronavirus Relief Fund (FAL #21.019) Contract Numbers: N/A Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Treasury Type of Finding: Reporting Material Noncompliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: As stipulated by the Department of Treasury (?DOT?) Coronavirus Relief Fund Prime Recipient Quarterly Grant Solutions Submissions Closeout Procedures Guide, recipients are required to submit a report detailing COVID-19 related obligations and expenditures incurred during the covered period to the DOT through the GrantSolutions portal on a quarterly basis, no later than ten days after each calendar quarter. Condition/Context: Of the two (2) quarterly reports selected for testing, we found the following: ? The report for the period of October 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020 was not submitted ? The report for the period of January 1, 2021 through March 31, 2021 was submitted 80 days after the extended due date Cause/Effect: OMB did not have processes and controls in place to ensure that the required reports were accurately completed and submitted on a timely basis. This resulted in OMB missing the filing window and failing to submit their December 31, 2020 report. Additionally, OMB did not submit the March 31, 2021 report within the stipulated 10-day period due to an error within their report that prevented the report from being submitted in the GrantSolutions portal. The Department of Treasury (?DOT?) provided OMB with a nine day extension and provided instruction to OMB to fix the error within the extension period. OMB made the correction and submitted the report 80 days after the extended due date. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding Recommendation: We recommend that the OMB establish procedures and implement appropriate internal controls over the reporting process to ensure all quarterly reports are prepared accurately, properly reviewed and submitted within the required 10-day timeframe.

Finding #: 2021-009 Funding Year(s): 3/3/2021 ? 12/31/2024 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (FAL #21.027) Contract Numbers: N/A Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Treasury Type of Finding: Period of Performance Material Noncompliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: As stipulated by the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) Interim Final Rule, a recipient may only use funds to cover costs incurred during the period beginning March 3, 2021 through December 31, 2024. Condition/Context: Prior to performing our period of performance testing, OMB identified $3,504,131 of non-payroll expenditures that were charged to the CSLFRF grant that were incurred prior to March 3, 2021. After excluding the $3,504,131 of expenditures from the total population of non-payroll expenditures charged to the CSLFRF grant, we selected a non-statistical sample of forty (40) non-payroll expenditures that were incurred during the first month of the period of performance for testing and did not identify any additional instances of noncompliance. Total non-payroll expenditures charged to the grant were $268,575,678 and total non-payroll expenditures subjected to testing were $1,925,830. In addition, we selected a non-statistical sample of forty (40) payroll expenditures that were incurred during the first month of the period of performance for testing and identified twenty-five (25) exceptions due to the fact that some of the payroll costs were incurred prior to March 3, 2021. Total payroll costs charged to the program were $696,282,901; total payroll charges subjected to testing were $69,796; and, the payroll charges incurred prior to March 3, 2021 were $16,077. Cause/Effect: We were informed that to determine the expenditures that were allowed to be charged to the CSLFRF grant, OMB utilized the date the expenditure was recorded within the general ledger, rather than the date the underlying expenditure was incurred. Because OMB did not have appropriate controls in place to ensure expenditures were incurred within the applicable period of performance, expenditures totaling $3,520,208, as identified above, were incorrectly charged to the program. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $3,520,208. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that the OMB establish internal control policies and procedures to ensure that only expenditures incurred within the applicable period of performance are charged to the federal program.

Finding #: 2021-010 Funding Year(s): 07/01/2020 - 06/30/2021 New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene: Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (FAL #14.241) Contract Number: N/A Pass-Through Agency: N/A Federal Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development Type of Finding: Subrecipient Monitoring Compliance and Internal Control (Significant Deficiency) Criteria: The subrecipient monitoring requirements of 2 CFR 200.332(a)(1) stipulate that pass-through entities include specific Federal award information within sub-award contracts. Such information, among other things, should include: i. Subrecipient's unique entity identifier; ii. Federal Award Identification Number; iii. Federal Award Date of award to the City Agency by the Federal agency; iv. Name of Federal awarding agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the Pass-through entity; v. Assistance Listings number and Title vi. Indirect cost rate for the Federal award Condition/Context: Of the five (5) subrecipient contracts selected for testing, none of the contracts included any of the data points described above (i. ? vi.) in accordance with 2 CFR 200.332(a)(1). Cause/Effect: While DOHMH has established subrecipient monitoring procedures, such procedures did not adequately contemplate all of the required elements and/or data points necessary to be included in all of their respective subrecipient agreements. Missing or incomplete required data elements could result in subrecipients not having sufficient information to appropriately comply with Uniform Guidance reporting and/or other program specific compliance requirements. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that DOHMH create a comprehensive internal control structure which ensures that all subrecipient compliance requirements are being met, including a review of all subrecipient contracts and related amendments, to ensure every subrecipient agreement contains all of the required information stipulated by 2 CFR 200.332(a)(1).

Finding #: 2021-011 Funding Year(s): 10/19/2017-9/1/2025 HOME Investment Partnerships Program (FAL #14.239) Contract Numbers: M-17-MC-36-0204 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Type of Finding: Allowable Costs and Eligibility - Material Noncompliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: In accordance with 23 CFR sections 1.9, 172.11(a), 420.113(a), and 630.106(a), costs incurred under federal awards are considered allowable and reimbursable when such costs are deemed necessary and reasonable; incurred subsequent to the date of authorization to proceed and in accordance with the conditions contained in the project agreement and the plans specifications; and, not included as costs used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements, among other things. As stipulated by 24 CFR ?92.209, tenant-based rental assistance (TBRA) may only be provided to very low- and low-income families. The participating jurisdiction must determine that the family is very low- or low-income before the assistance is provided. During the period of assistance, the participating jurisdiction must annually determine that the family continues to be low-income. Also, the maximum monthly assistance that a participating jurisdiction may pay to, or on behalf of, a family may not exceed the difference between a rent standard for the unit size established by the participating jurisdiction and 30 percent of the family's monthly adjusted income. Additionally, the participating jurisdiction must disapprove a lease if the rent is not reasonable, based on rents that are charged for comparable unassisted rental units. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of Federal Awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? (the ?Green Book?) 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?) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: The New York City Human Resources Administration (?HRA?) utilizes the Housing Assistance Payment System (?HAPS?) to assess beneficiaries? eligibility to receive tenant based rental assistance through the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (?HOME?). To assess eligibility, HRA program staff obtain income supporting documentation to determine if the household met the low-income requirement and to calculate the maximum subsidy amount to be paid by HRA. Additionally, a rent reasonableness valuation is performed which compares the current beneficiary?s rental amount to rents charged for comparable units to ensure reasonableness of the rent. Upon the completion of the eligibility determination by an HRA staff member, a designated program supervisor reviews and approves the eligibility determination, subsidy amount, and tenant share within HAPS. We selected a non-statistical sample of forty (40) rental assistance payments made on behalf of tenants during FY2021 and found that twenty-two (22) of the selections had errors as follows: ? For twenty-two (22) of the selections, HRA was not able to provide documentation to support the participant?s annual income. Further, for eight (8) of the twenty-two (22), HRA was also not able to provide the HOME TBRA Certification Information Form, which is utilized to calculate and support HRA?s share of the monthly rent to be paid on behalf of the participant. ? For nine (9) of the selections, HRA was not able to provide documentation to support that a rent reasonableness assessment was performed. ? For one (1) selection, it was noted that HRA?s share of monthly rent was determined to be $760, however, due to a manual input error, the amount actually paid on behalf of the tenant was $785. ? For two (2) of the selections, HRA was not able to provide documentation to support that the eligibility determination and the related calculation was properly reviewed and approved by a supervisor. Total TBRA payments charged to the grant were $4,994,185 and total TBRA benefits subjected to testing were $51,659. Cause/Effect: While HRA has a process in place to assess the eligibility of tenants and calculate the monthly TBRA payments on behalf of those tenants to ensure allowability of costs incurred, a comprehensive review was not consistently performed and documented to ensure the appropriate evidence and related approvals were maintained to support those determinations and calculations. As a result, unallowable costs were incurred on behalf of certain tenants that may not have met all of the eligibility requirements, or an incorrect amount may have been paid on their behalf. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs totaled $26,674. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding Recommendation: We recommend that HRA strengthen their internal controls governing the eligibility determination process, including creating a comprehensive review checklist to ensure each tenant meets every eligibility requirement and HRA?s portion of the TBRA payments are properly calculated, and that appropriate supervisory review and approval is consistently performed and documented prior to processing payments and charging costs to the grant.

Finding #: 2021-012 Funding Year(s): 7/1/2020 ? 6/30/2021 Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) (FAL #14.241) Contract Numbers: NYH20F002; NYH21F002 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Type of Finding: Eligibility - Material Noncompliance and Internal Control (Material Weakness) Criteria: As stipulated by 24 CFR Section 574.3, to be eligible to receive HOPWA funded benefits, a participant must be diagnosed with an acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or related diseases and be a low-income individual, as determined by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. HRA utilizes the household income of eligible participants to calculate the monthly rental assistance payment to be made on their behalf. Additionally, as stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of Federal Awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? (the ?Green Book?) 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?) for the federal funding streams it administers. Condition/Context: We noted that certain rental assistance payments were calculated using an incorrect household income amount. From a non-statistical sample of forty (40) rental assistance payments made on behalf of tenants during FY2021 that were selected for testing, we identified twelve (12) exceptions, as follows: ? For three (3) of the selections, HRA utilized household income that was higher than their actual income, which caused HRA?s monthly rental assistance payment for the selected period to be less than it should have been. ? For nine (9) of the selections, HRA utilized household income that was lower than their actual income, which caused HRA?s monthly rental assistance payment for the selected period to be higher than it should have been. The excess payments for these selections totaled $1,713. Total rental assistance payments charged to the grant were $16,631,091 and total HOPWA rent subsidies subjected to testing were $52,598. Cause/Effect: While HRA has a process in place to assess the eligibility of tenants and calculate the monthly rental assistance payments to be made on their behalf, they did not consistently ensure that the household income utilized to calculate the monthly rental assistance payment was accurate. As a result, an incorrect monthly rental assistance amount was paid on behalf of certain tenants. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs totaled $1,713 Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding Recommendation: We recommend that HRA strengthen their internal controls governing the eligibility process, including ensuring the household income utilized to calculate the monthly rental assistance amount is accurate prior to processing payments and charging costs to the grant.

Criteria: As stipulated by the New York State Education Department (?NYSED?) Fiscal Guidelines for Federal and State Grants, program recipients are required to submit to NYSED a signed copy of the Final Expenditure Report for a Federal Project (?FS-10F?) along with other reports, as appropriate, within 90 days following the end of the grant award period. Condition/Context: Of the FS-10F reports submitted by the DOE during fiscal year 2020, we selected a sample of thirty-seven (37) FS-10F reports and found that sixteen (16) of the reports tested were submitted after the required due date, as follows: ? Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies (FAL #84.010): of the eight (8) FS-10F reports tested, three (3) were submitted between 59 and 96 days late. ? Preschool Development Grants (FAL #84.419): of the one (1) FS-10F report tested, such report was submitted 31 days late. ? Career & Technical Education - Basic Grants to States (FAL #84.048): of the two (2) FS-10F reports tested, each of the two (2) was submitted between 25 and 59 days late. ? Twenty-First Century Community Learning Center (FAL #84.287): of the eight (8) FS-10F reports tested, each of the eight (8) was submitted between 59 and 104 days late. ? English Language Acquisition Grants (FAL #84.365): of the nine (9) FS-10F reports tested, one (1) was submitted 12 days late. ? School Improvement Grants (FAL #84.377): of the nine (9) FS-10F reports tested, one (1) was submitted 46 days late. Cause/Effect: We were informed that due to open encumbrances which had not been fully liquidated by the FS-10F due date, the DOE was unable to complete and submit the FS-10F financial reports within the stipulated 90-day period, thus resulting in late-filed reports. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2019-002, included on pages 199 through 201 of the Fiscal 2019 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend the DOE consider establishing procedures and operational practices whereby disposition of open encumbrances is accelerated such that all FS-10F expenditure reports are prepared and submitted within the required 90-day timeframe.

Criteria: During the period of affordability for which the non-Federal entity must maintain subsidized housing for the HOME-assisted rental housing program, the participating jurisdiction must perform on-site inspections at least once every 3 years to determine compliance with Housing Quality Standards (24 CFR sections 92.209(i), 92.251(f), and 92.504(d)). Furthermore, for any failed inspections, the appropriate repairs to bring the building into compliance must be performed timely. Condition/Context: HPD has policies and procedures in place to identify units which require Housing Quality Standards inspections and performs inspections of these units to help ensure that any needed repairs are completed within the stipulated timeframe. For those units in need of repairs, HPD policy requires that repairs be completed within 90 days after the initial inspection and supported by a Certificate of Repairs form. In accordance with the individual agreements between HPD and the Sponsors of the respective housing projects, the Sponsors are responsible for maintaining compliance with the Housing Quality Standards, and the HPD inspections are conducted to help ensure the respective Sponsors are maintaining compliance. Additionally, there are clauses within the individual agreements between HPD and the Sponsor which allows HPD to exercise remedies such as restricting funding to Sponsors who do not comply with the Housing Quality Standards. Our procedures identified five (5) instances from a sample of forty (40), where the necessary repairs were not made by the Sponsors within the stipulated 90-day period. For each of these instances, HPD forwarded a Notification of Failure describing the findings and a reminder that the Sponsor had 90 days to submit a Certification of Repairs. Despite those efforts, we noted: ? Two (2) instances whereby Sponsors submitted a Certification of Repairs after the 90-day timeframe; and, ? Three (3) instances whereby Sponsors failed to submit a Certification of Repairs. As a result, HPD sent non-compliance letters to those respective Sponsors, sent email notifications of non-compliance to those respective Sponsors including a reminder to submit the required Certification of Repairs, and, ultimately subjected the same respective units for re-inspection. Based on the three (3) re-inspections, two (2) of the units passed the inspection and one (1) of the units failed the inspection. Cause/Effect: While HPD conducts monitoring procedures to help ensure that Housing Quality Standards are maintained and, when necessary, related repairs are performed by the respective Sponsors within the prescribed 90-day timeframe, we noted that the necessary repairs were not consistently completed within the stipulated timeframe or not completed at all. Incomplete and/or repairs that do not meet the stipulated completion timeframe could result in Sponsored projects not maintaining the appropriate quality of living conditions for tenants and, therefore, not comply the applicable Housing Quality Standards. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding # 2019-003, included on pages 202 through 204 of the Fiscal 2019 Single Audit report. Recommendation: While contract provisions between HPD and the respective Sponsors permit HPD to exercise remedies, which may include the withdrawal of future funding, HPD did not elect to exercise any such remedies. Accordingly, we recommend that HPD continue to strengthen its monitoring of Sponsors in connection with housing quality inspections and determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether to exercise appropriate remedies in accordance with contract provisions or consider documenting its rationale for not doing so.

Criteria: As stipulated by 2 CFR Section 200.303, recipients of Federal Awards are required to establish and maintain an internal control environment that complies with either the guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? (the ?Green Book?) 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?) for the programs it administers. Condition/Context: The New York City Administration for Children?s Services (?ACS?) utilizes an eligibility checklist mandated by the State of New York (?NY State?) to assess beneficiaries? eligibility to receive benefits through the Foster Care program. Upon the completion of the eligibility checklist by an ACS staff member, ACS? policies and procedures require that a designated supervisor review and approve the checklist prior to ACS determining a child to be IV-E eligible. From a judgmentally selected sample of forty (40) eligibility files subject to testing, we identified three (3) eligibility redetermination checklists that did not include evidence of the required review and approval by a supervisor. Cause/Effect: While ACS has established policies and procedures to help ensure eligibility requirements are met, we noted the appropriate reviews were not consistently performed, which could result in an ineligible individual receiving benefits. With respect to the sampled files referred to above, however, ACS personnel were able to demonstrate that all such individuals were in fact eligible for Foster Care benefits, and accordingly program eligibility requirements were satisfied for these files. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that ACS strengthen controls over the foster care eligibility process to ensure the appropriate supervisory review and approval is consistently performed.

Criteria: As stipulated by 2 CFR sections 200.313(d)(2), a physical inventory of property and equipment acquired under a federal award must be taken, and the results reconciled with the property records, at least once every two years. Condition/Context: The New York City Police Department (?NYPD?) utilizes an internal system called Grants Tracking System (GTS) to record and track all equipment purchased using federal awards. Further, NYPD Command-designated grants coordinators are responsible for monitoring the equipment and updating the inventory on a periodic basis in accordance with federal guidelines. The NYPD Grants Unit periodically generates an inventory listing from GTS that includes the biennial inventory count due date for each item and distributes it to the assigned NYPD Command-designated grant coordinators to ensure the inventory count is conducted timely and in accordance with federal requirements. After the completion of biennial inventory count, the NYPD Command-designated grants coordinators update the inventory count information to the GTS. During Fiscal Year 2020, the NYPD Command-designated grants coordinators did not conduct the physical inventory count within the federal compliance requirement of at least once every two (2) years, which resulted in exceptions for all three (3) sampled equipment items that were tested and subject to an inventory count during the City?s fiscal year 2020. Cause/Effect: While NYPD has policies and procedures in place to identify the biennial inventory count due dates and perform inventory counts within the required timeframe, we noted that required inventory counts were not consistently completed within the stipulated timeframe for the equipment items tested during fiscal year 2020. Inventory counts that are not completed within the required timeframe could result in federally funded equipment being inaccurately recorded on the inventory records and not discovered and corrected timely. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that NYPD strengthen controls over the inventory process to ensure biennial inventory counts are consistently performed over all equipment within the required timeframe.

Criteria: As stipulated by 2 CFR sections 200.313(d)(2), a physical inventory of property and equipment acquired under a federal award must be taken, and the results reconciled with the property records, at least once every two years. Condition/Context: The New York City Fire Department (?FDNY?) Grants Unit utilizes the Grants Tracking System (?GTS?), a city-wide web-based inventory program, designed to standardize the tracking of federally funded equipment. FDNY program managers are responsible for monitoring the equipment and updating the inventory on a periodic basis in accordance with federal guidelines. Each quarter, the FDNY Grant Asset Management Unit generates an inventory listing from GTS that includes the biennial inventory count due date for each item and distributes it to the assigned FDNY program managers to ensure the inventory count is conducted timely and in accordance with federal requirements. After the completion of the biennial inventory count, the program managers update the inventory count information to the GTS. During fiscal year 2020, the FDNY program managers did not conduct the physical inventory count within the federal compliance requirement of at least once every two (2) years for the one (1) sampled equipment item that was tested and subject to an inventory count during the City?s fiscal year 2020. Cause/Effect: While FDNY has policies and procedures in place to identify the biennial inventory count due dates and perform inventory counts within the required timeframe, we noted that the inventory count was not completed within the stipulated timeframe for the equipment item tested during fiscal year 2020. FDNY Management indicated that the inventory count was delayed due to staffing constraints that were caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Inventory counts that are not completed within the required timeframe could result in federally funded equipment being inaccurately recorded on the inventory records and not discovered and corrected timely. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that FDNY supplement its current controls over the inventory process to include policies and procedures that address circumstances caused by extraordinary events such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Criteria: In accordance with 23 CFR sections 1.9, 172.11(a), 420.113(a), and 630.106(a), costs incurred under federal awards are considered allowable and reimbursable when such costs are deemed necessary and reasonable; incurred subsequent to the date of authorization to proceed and in accordance with the conditions contained in the project agreement and the plans specifications; and, not included as costs used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements, among other things. Condition/Context: Certain salaries with respect to the calculation of payroll costs charged to the program were based upon an incorrect pay rate. From a sample of forty (40) salary charges subject to testing, we identified three (3) exceptions; one (1) due to the application of a rate that was higher than the individuals? approved pay rate at the time the effort was incurred and two (2) that were based upon a lower rate. Total payroll costs charged to the program were $30,127,255; total payroll charges subjected to testing were $747,395; and, the payroll charges in excess of the pay-rate in effect at the time the effort was incurred were $3,515. Cause/Effect: While DOT has established policies and procedures to help ensure the appropriate pay rates are used in the calculation of payroll charges to federal awards, certain payroll charges, as referred to above, were not accurately calculated based on pay rates in effect at the time the effort was incurred. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs totaled $3,515. Likely questioned costs totaled $141,674. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2019-004, included on pages 205 through 206 of the Fiscal 2019 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend that DOT strengthen controls over the application of pay rates utilized in the calculation of payroll costs charged to federal awards.

Criteria: In accordance with 23 CFR sections 1.9, 172.11(a), 420.113(a), and 630.106(a), costs incurred under federal awards are considered allowable and reimbursable when such costs are deemed necessary and reasonable; incurred subsequent to the date of authorization to proceed and in accordance with the conditions contained in the project agreement and the plans specifications; and, not included as costs used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements, among other things. Condition/Context: Certain salaries with respect to the calculation of payroll costs charged to the program were based upon an incorrect pay rate or an inaccurate number of hours worked. From a sample of forty (40) salary charges subject to testing, we identified four (4) exceptions; one (1) expectation was due to the application of a pay rate that was higher than the individual?s approved pay rate at the time the effort was incurred, and three (3) exceptions were due to more hours being charged to the grant than were actually worked by the employee during that particular pay period. Total payroll costs charged to the program were $8,305,850; total payroll charges subjected to testing were $131,320; and the calculated error totaled $2,068. Cause/Effect: While H+H has established policies and procedures to help ensure only allowable costs and activities are charged to the program, certain payroll charges, as referred to above, were not accurately calculated based on pay rates in effect at the time the effort was incurred or the appropriate number of hours worked during the pay period. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs totaled $2,068. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding Recommendation: We recommend that H+H strengthen controls over the application of pay rates and hours worked that are utilized in the calculation of payroll costs charged to federal awards, including ensuring such calculations are properly documented and reviewed prior to processing payments to employees and charging costs to the grant.

Criteria: To be eligible for Federal reimbursement, meals must be served to eligible children and must be supported by accurate meal counts and records indicating the number of meals served by category and type, taken at the point of service or developed through an approved alternative procedure. For the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program, meal count and claiming systems must comply with the requirements of 7 Code of Federal Regulations (?CFR?) Sections 210.7, 210.8, 220.9, and 220.11; and, requirements for meal reimbursement under the Summer Food Service Program for Children are stipulated by 7 CFR Sections 225.9(c), 225.9(d) and 225.16. Condition/Context: The DOE has procedures in place governing accurate meal counts pursuant to Federal requirements. Each year, the DOE?s Task Force Technical Advisors (?TFTA?) visits various schools to conduct a review of the respective school?s compliance with established meal count requirements. In accordance with CFR 210.8, if the initial reviews result in deficiencies relating to either the meal counting or claiming procedures or general areas, TFTA is required to perform a follow-up visit to help ensure that the school or site has implemented a corrective action within 45 days of the initial review. We obtained a listing of the schools reviewed by the TFTA during the School Year 2018-2019 and judgmentally selected a sample of forty (40) schools or sites to determine whether the reviews were properly documented and, if the review resulted in a deficiency, that a follow-up visit was performed within 45 days of the initial review date to help ensure the school or site implemented a corrective action to resolve such deficiency. TFTA?s initial review of one (1) of the forty (40) schools and sites selected for testing resulted in a deficiency, thereby, requiring a follow-up visit within 45 days. However, we noted that TFTA did not complete the follow-up visit within the stipulated 45-day timeframe. Consequently, the school was not in compliance with the special reporting requirements stipulated by CFR 210.8. Cause/Effect: While DOE?s TFTA has established policies and procedures to help ensure the appropriate inspections are performed in accordance with Program regulations and that required follow-up inspections are performed, procedures governing completion of all follow-up inspections within the prescribed 45-day timeframe are not formalized. Consequently, not all of the required follow-up inspections were performed within the stipulated timeframe. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2018-001, included on pages 203 through 204 of the Fiscal 2018 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend that the DOE formalize procedures requiring completion of all TFTA follow-up inspections within 45 days of the initial review to help ensure that the respective school has implemented its corrective action plan.

Criteria: As stipulated by the New York State Education Department (?NYSED?) Fiscal Guidelines for Federal and State Grants, program recipients are required to submit to NYSED a signed copy of the Final Expenditure Report for a Federal Project (?FS-10F?) along with other reports, as appropriate, within 90 days following the end of the grant award period. Condition/Context: Of the FS-10F reports submitted by the DOE during fiscal year 2019, we judgmentally selected a sample of thirty-five (35) FS-10F reports and found that twenty-two (22) of the reports tested were submitted after the required due date, as follows: ? Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies (CFDA # 84.010): of the four (4) FS-10F reports tested, each of the four (4) was submitted between 22 and 98 days late. ? Preschool Development Grants (CFDA #84.419): of the one (1) FS-10F report tested, such report was submitted 72 days late. ? Career & Technical Education - Basic Grants to States (CFDA #84.048): of the two (2) FS-10F report tested, one (1) was submitted 119 days late. ? Twenty-First Century Community Learning Center (CFDA #84.287): of the eight (8) FS-10F reports tested, each of the eight (8) was submitted between 35 and 49 days late. ? English Language Acquisition Grants (CFDA #84.365): of the nine (9) FS-10F reports tested, two (2) were submitted between one and 63 days late. ? Supportive Effective Instruction State Grants (CFDA #84.367): of the two (2) FS-10F reports tested, one (1) was submitted 40 days late. ? School Improvement Grants (CFDA #84.377): of the nine (9) FS-10F reports tested, five (5) were submitted between 34 and 97 days late. Cause/Effect: We were informed that due to open encumbrances which had not been fully liquidated by the FS-10F due date, the DOE was unable to complete and submit the FS-10F financial reports within the stipulated 90-day period, thus resulting in late-filed reports. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2018-002, included on pages 205 through 206 of the Fiscal 2018 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend the DOE consider establishing procedures and operational practices whereby disposition of open encumbrances is accelerated such that all FS-10F expenditure reports are prepared and submitted within the required 90-day timeframe.

Criteria: During the period for which the non-Federal entity must maintain subsidized housing for the HOME-assisted rental housing program, the participating jurisdiction must perform on-site inspections to determine compliance with property standards and verify the information submitted by the owners no less than (a) every 3 years for projects containing 1 to 4 units, (b) every 2 years for projects containing 5 to 25 units, and (c) every year for projects containing 26 or more units. The participating jurisdiction must perform on-site inspections of rental housing occupied by tenants receiving HOME-assisted tenant based rental assistance to determine compliance with Housing Quality Standards (24 CFR sections 92.209(i), 92.251(f), and 92.504(d)). Furthermore, for any failed inspections, the appropriate repairs to bring the building into compliance must be performed timely. Condition/Context: HPD has policies and procedures in place to identify units which require Housing Quality Standards inspections, and performs inspections of these units to help ensure that any needed repairs are completed within the stipulated timeframe. For those units in need of repairs, HPD policy requires that repairs be completed within 90 days after the initial inspection and supported by a Certificate of Repairs form. In accordance with the individual agreements between HPD and the Sponsors of the respective housing projects, the Sponsors are responsible for maintaining compliance with the Housing Quality Standards, and the HPD inspections are conducted to help ensure the respective Sponsors are maintaining compliance. Additionally, there are clauses within the individual agreements between HPD and the Sponsor which allow HPD to exercise remedies such as restricting funding to Sponsors who do not comply with the Housing Quality Standards. Our procedures identified eight (8) instances from a judgmentally selected sample of forty (40), where the necessary repairs were not made by the Sponsors within the stipulated 90-day period. For each of these instances, HPD forwarded a Notification of Failure describing the findings and a reminder that the Sponsor had 90 days to submit a Certification of Repairs. Despite those efforts, we noted: ? Three (3) instances whereby Sponsors submitted a Certification of Repairs after the 90-day timeframe; and, ? Five (5) instances whereby Sponsors failed to submit a Certification of Repairs. As a result, HPD sent non-compliance letters; sent email notifications of non-compliance to Sponsors including a reminder to submit the required Certification of Repairs; and, ultimately subjected the same respective units for re-inspection. Based on the five (5) re-inspections, one (1) of the units passed the inspection, one (1) of the units was inaccessible, and three (3) of the units failed the inspection. Cause/Effect: While HPD conducts monitoring procedures to help ensure that Housing Quality Standards are maintained and, when necessary, related repairs are performed by the respective Sponsors within the prescribed 90-day timeframe, we noted that the necessary repairs were not consistently completed within the stipulated timeframe or not completed at all. Incomplete repairs or repairs that do not meet the stipulated completion timeframe could result in Sponsored projects not maintaining the appropriate quality of living conditions for tenants and, therefore, not comply the applicable Housing Quality Standards. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding # 2018-003, included on pages 207 through 208 of the Fiscal 2018 Single Audit report. Recommendation: While contract provisions between HPD and the respective Sponsors permit HPD to exercise remedies, which may include the withdrawal of future funding, HPD did not elect to exercise any such remedies. Accordingly, we recommend that HPD continue to strengthen its monitoring of Sponsors in connection with housing quality inspections and determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether to exercise appropriate remedies in accordance with contract provisions or consider documenting its rationale for not doing so.

Criteria: In accordance with 23 CFR sections 1.9, 172.11(a), 420.113(a), and 630.106(a), costs incurred under federal awards are considered allowable and reimbursable when such costs are deemed necessary and reasonable; incurred subsequent to the date of authorization to proceed and in accordance with the conditions contained in the project agreement and the plans specifications; and, not included as costs used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements, among other things. Condition/Context: Certain salaries with respect to the calculation of payroll costs charged to the program were based upon an incorrect pay rate. From a judgmentally selected sample of forty (40) salary charges subject to testing, we identified four (4) exceptions; three (3) due to the application of a rate that was higher than the individuals? approved pay rate at the time the effort was incurred and one (1) that was based upon a lower rate. Total payroll costs charged to the program were $86,146,174; total payroll charges subjected to testing were $2,691,483; and, total payroll charges in excess of the pay-rate in effect at the time the effort was incurred were $3,429. Cause/Effect: While DOT has established policies and procedures to help ensure the appropriate pay rates used in the calculation of payroll charges, such calculations are performed manually. Consequently, certain payroll charges, as referred to above, were not accurately calculated based on pay rates in effect at the time the effort was incurred. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs totaled $3,429. Likely questioned costs totaled $109,737. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that DOT strengthen controls over the application of pay rates utilized in the calculation of payroll costs charged to federal awards.

Criteria: To be eligible for Federal reimbursement, meals must be served to eligible children and must be supported by accurate meal counts and records indicating the number of meals served by category and type, taken at the point of service or developed through an approved alternative procedure. For the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program, meal count and claiming systems must comply with the requirements of 7 Code of Federal Regulations (?CFR?) Sections 210.7, 210.8, 220.9, and 220.11; and, requirements for meal reimbursement under the Summer Food Service Program for Children are stipulated by 7 CFR Sections 225.9(c), 225.9(d) and 225.16. Condition/Context: The DOE has procedures in place governing accurate meal counts pursuant to Federal requirements. Each year, the DOE?s Task Force Technical Advisors (?TFTA?) visits various schools to conduct a review of the respective school?s compliance with established meal count requirements. In accordance with CFR 210.8, if the initial reviews result in deficiencies relating to either the meal counting or claiming procedures or general areas, TFTA is required to perform a follow-up visit to help ensure that the school or site has implemented a corrective action within 45 days of the initial review. We obtained a listing of the schools reviewed by the TFTA during the School Year 2018-2019 and judgmentally selected a sample of forty (40) schools or sites to determine whether the reviews were properly documented and, if the review resulted in a deficiency, that a follow-up visit was performed within 45 days of the initial review date to help ensure the school or site implemented a corrective action to resolve such deficiency. TFTA?s initial review of one (1) of the forty (40) schools and sites selected for testing resulted in a deficiency, thereby, requiring a follow-up visit within 45 days. However, we noted that TFTA did not complete the follow-up visit within the stipulated 45-day timeframe. Consequently, the school was not in compliance with the special reporting requirements stipulated by CFR 210.8. Cause/Effect: While DOE?s TFTA has established policies and procedures to help ensure the appropriate inspections are performed in accordance with Program regulations and that required follow-up inspections are performed, procedures governing completion of all follow-up inspections within the prescribed 45-day timeframe are not formalized. Consequently, not all of the required follow-up inspections were performed within the stipulated timeframe. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2018-001, included on pages 203 through 204 of the Fiscal 2018 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend that the DOE formalize procedures requiring completion of all TFTA follow-up inspections within 45 days of the initial review to help ensure that the respective school has implemented its corrective action plan.

Criteria: As stipulated by the New York State Education Department (?NYSED?) Fiscal Guidelines for Federal and State Grants, program recipients are required to submit to NYSED a signed copy of the Final Expenditure Report for a Federal Project (?FS-10F?) along with other reports, as appropriate, within 90 days following the end of the grant award period. Condition/Context: Of the FS-10F reports submitted by the DOE during fiscal year 2019, we judgmentally selected a sample of thirty-five (35) FS-10F reports and found that twenty-two (22) of the reports tested were submitted after the required due date, as follows: ? Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies (CFDA # 84.010): of the four (4) FS-10F reports tested, each of the four (4) was submitted between 22 and 98 days late. ? Preschool Development Grants (CFDA #84.419): of the one (1) FS-10F report tested, such report was submitted 72 days late. ? Career & Technical Education - Basic Grants to States (CFDA #84.048): of the two (2) FS-10F report tested, one (1) was submitted 119 days late. ? Twenty-First Century Community Learning Center (CFDA #84.287): of the eight (8) FS-10F reports tested, each of the eight (8) was submitted between 35 and 49 days late. ? English Language Acquisition Grants (CFDA #84.365): of the nine (9) FS-10F reports tested, two (2) were submitted between one and 63 days late. ? Supportive Effective Instruction State Grants (CFDA #84.367): of the two (2) FS-10F reports tested, one (1) was submitted 40 days late. ? School Improvement Grants (CFDA #84.377): of the nine (9) FS-10F reports tested, five (5) were submitted between 34 and 97 days late. Cause/Effect: We were informed that due to open encumbrances which had not been fully liquidated by the FS-10F due date, the DOE was unable to complete and submit the FS-10F financial reports within the stipulated 90-day period, thus resulting in late-filed reports. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding #2018-002, included on pages 205 through 206 of the Fiscal 2018 Single Audit report. Recommendation: We recommend the DOE consider establishing procedures and operational practices whereby disposition of open encumbrances is accelerated such that all FS-10F expenditure reports are prepared and submitted within the required 90-day timeframe.

Criteria: During the period for which the non-Federal entity must maintain subsidized housing for the HOME-assisted rental housing program, the participating jurisdiction must perform on-site inspections to determine compliance with property standards and verify the information submitted by the owners no less than (a) every 3 years for projects containing 1 to 4 units, (b) every 2 years for projects containing 5 to 25 units, and (c) every year for projects containing 26 or more units. The participating jurisdiction must perform on-site inspections of rental housing occupied by tenants receiving HOME-assisted tenant based rental assistance to determine compliance with Housing Quality Standards (24 CFR sections 92.209(i), 92.251(f), and 92.504(d)). Furthermore, for any failed inspections, the appropriate repairs to bring the building into compliance must be performed timely. Condition/Context: HPD has policies and procedures in place to identify units which require Housing Quality Standards inspections, and performs inspections of these units to help ensure that any needed repairs are completed within the stipulated timeframe. For those units in need of repairs, HPD policy requires that repairs be completed within 90 days after the initial inspection and supported by a Certificate of Repairs form. In accordance with the individual agreements between HPD and the Sponsors of the respective housing projects, the Sponsors are responsible for maintaining compliance with the Housing Quality Standards, and the HPD inspections are conducted to help ensure the respective Sponsors are maintaining compliance. Additionally, there are clauses within the individual agreements between HPD and the Sponsor which allow HPD to exercise remedies such as restricting funding to Sponsors who do not comply with the Housing Quality Standards. Our procedures identified eight (8) instances from a judgmentally selected sample of forty (40), where the necessary repairs were not made by the Sponsors within the stipulated 90-day period. For each of these instances, HPD forwarded a Notification of Failure describing the findings and a reminder that the Sponsor had 90 days to submit a Certification of Repairs. Despite those efforts, we noted: ? Three (3) instances whereby Sponsors submitted a Certification of Repairs after the 90-day timeframe; and, ? Five (5) instances whereby Sponsors failed to submit a Certification of Repairs. As a result, HPD sent non-compliance letters; sent email notifications of non-compliance to Sponsors including a reminder to submit the required Certification of Repairs; and, ultimately subjected the same respective units for re-inspection. Based on the five (5) re-inspections, one (1) of the units passed the inspection, one (1) of the units was inaccessible, and three (3) of the units failed the inspection. Cause/Effect: While HPD conducts monitoring procedures to help ensure that Housing Quality Standards are maintained and, when necessary, related repairs are performed by the respective Sponsors within the prescribed 90-day timeframe, we noted that the necessary repairs were not consistently completed within the stipulated timeframe or not completed at all. Incomplete repairs or repairs that do not meet the stipulated completion timeframe could result in Sponsored projects not maintaining the appropriate quality of living conditions for tenants and, therefore, not comply the applicable Housing Quality Standards. Questioned Costs: None identified. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This finding is similar to finding # 2018-003, included on pages 207 through 208 of the Fiscal 2018 Single Audit report. Recommendation: While contract provisions between HPD and the respective Sponsors permit HPD to exercise remedies, which may include the withdrawal of future funding, HPD did not elect to exercise any such remedies. Accordingly, we recommend that HPD continue to strengthen its monitoring of Sponsors in connection with housing quality inspections and determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether to exercise appropriate remedies in accordance with contract provisions or consider documenting its rationale for not doing so.

Criteria: In accordance with 23 CFR sections 1.9, 172.11(a), 420.113(a), and 630.106(a), costs incurred under federal awards are considered allowable and reimbursable when such costs are deemed necessary and reasonable; incurred subsequent to the date of authorization to proceed and in accordance with the conditions contained in the project agreement and the plans specifications; and, not included as costs used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements, among other things. Condition/Context: Certain salaries with respect to the calculation of payroll costs charged to the program were based upon an incorrect pay rate. From a judgmentally selected sample of forty (40) salary charges subject to testing, we identified four (4) exceptions; three (3) due to the application of a rate that was higher than the individuals? approved pay rate at the time the effort was incurred and one (1) that was based upon a lower rate. Total payroll costs charged to the program were $86,146,174; total payroll charges subjected to testing were $2,691,483; and, total payroll charges in excess of the pay-rate in effect at the time the effort was incurred were $3,429. Cause/Effect: While DOT has established policies and procedures to help ensure the appropriate pay rates used in the calculation of payroll charges, such calculations are performed manually. Consequently, certain payroll charges, as referred to above, were not accurately calculated based on pay rates in effect at the time the effort was incurred. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs totaled $3,429. Likely questioned costs totaled $109,737. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that DOT strengthen controls over the application of pay rates utilized in the calculation of payroll costs charged to federal awards.

GSA_MIGRATION

GSA_MIGRATION

GSA_MIGRATION

GSA_MIGRATION

GSA_MIGRATION

GSA_MIGRATION

GSA_MIGRATION

GSA_MIGRATION

GSA_MIGRATION

GSA_MIGRATION

GSA_MIGRATION

GSA_MIGRATION

GSA_MIGRATION

GSA_MIGRATION

GSA_MIGRATION

GSA_MIGRATION

GSA_MIGRATION

GSA_MIGRATION

GSA_MIGRATION

GSA_MIGRATION

GSA_MIGRATION

GSA_MIGRATION

GSA_MIGRATION

GSA_MIGRATION

GSA_MIGRATION

GSA_MIGRATION

GSA_MIGRATION

GSA_MIGRATION

GSA_MIGRATION

GSA_MIGRATION

GSA_MIGRATION