Colorado Legal Services

Federal Agency: Legal Services Corporation (LSC) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal Program Name: LSC Grants Aging Cluster - Special Programs for the Aging, Title III, Part B Assistance Listing Number: 09.706060 93.044 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: 09-706060 - 2025 Various – Aging Cluster Pass-Through Agency: Various – Aging Cluster, see SEFA Pass-Through Numbers: Various – Aging Cluster, see SEFA Award Period: Various – see SEFA Type of Finding: • Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance Criteria or Specific Requirement: Federal regulations (45 CFR 1635.4(a) and 2 CFR 200.430), indicate that federal award recipients must base allocations of salaries and wages costs to grants on records that accurately reflect the work performed. Federal regulations (45 CFR 1630.5 and 2 CFR 200.403) indicate that expenditures are allowable under an LSC (or federal) grant or contract only if the recipient can demonstrate that the cost was consistent with accounting policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both LSC (or, federal)-funded and non-LSC (of, federal) -funded activities. It also states that costs must be adequately documented. The LSC financial guide also articulates that a cost allocation base must be cost-driven and that budgeted numbers or percentage of revenue are not allowable allocation bases. Condition: During our testing we noted: • LSC Payroll Transactions: Fourteen instances of errors totaling a net under allocation amount of $2,657. The under allocation was due to various over allocations of costs to other grants that were not based on employees’ time charged to the respective other grants in their timesheets. We also noted that the Organization allocated costs from the general fund (which consists of two unrestricted grants and the LSC grants) to LSC grants using allocation bases of percentage of revenue and projected revenue of the grants that make up the general fund. However, as revenue was recognized as expenses were incurred for the general fund, the allocations based on revenue approximated an allocation method based on a cost driver. • LSC Native American Grant Payroll Transactions: Three instances where a total of $4,383 was charged to payroll costs via an estimated fixed percentage allocation of employee time spent on the LSC Native American grant. The Organization was not able to provide supporting documentation for the fixed percentage. • Aging Cluster Payroll Transactions: Seven instances of errors totaling a net overallocation of payroll costs of $144 where an unsupported allocation percentage was used to allocate the employee's pay to the grant. The Organization used an allocation base of monthly hours coded to the grant per timesheets divided by 150 hours for the monthly pay period instead of total monthly hours listed in the employees’ timesheets. • Aging Cluster Fringe-benefit Transactions: Five instances where $2,797 of additional medical insurance costs were allocated to grants based on reconciliations of budgeted grant revenue to period-to-date actual grant expenses that showed revenue exceeding expenses. Based on discussions with management and subsequent recalculations, it appears that the allocated costs (and more) could have been allocated via an allowable cost driver method (grant salaries compared to total organization salaries for the year). Questioned Costs: None. Context: These 29 instances were noting during testing of 120 transactions. Cause: The Organization’s cost allocation methodology is primarily based on time and effort records, and periodic calculations of a LSC allocation base (based on revenue or projected revenue) for the period divided by the total allocation base (based on revenue or projected revenue) coded to the Organization’s general fund, but it often includes manual adjustments based on review of individual time records, expense and other data. Therefore, the methodology is challenging to apply consistently, document contemporaneously, and apply in accordance with federal regulations. Effect: The inclusion of frequent manual adjustments and varying allocation bases in the Organization’s cost allocation methodology could cause costs to be allocated to grants that are not reflective of the time and effort spent on grant activities and in a manner where costs are not applied uniformly to both LSC (or, federally)-funded and non-LSC (of, federally) -funded activities. It could also lead to challenges in maintaining sufficient supporting documentation of such cost allocations. Repeat Finding: The finding is a repeat of findings in the immediately prior year. The prior year finding numbers were 2024-002 and 2024-004. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization consider updating its cost allocation methodology and process to reduce the frequency of manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data and maximize the use of automated allocations that are calculated in a consistent manner that ensure costs are applied uniformly to respective benefited activities, and that are reflective on employees’ time and effort records. We also recommend that the Organization maintain contemporaneous documentation supporting all cost allocations. Lastly, the Organization could consider removing LSC from the general fund into its own fund, and using fringe benefit rate and indirect cost rate allocation methods to simplify its cost allocation process. Views of responsible officials: Management partially agrees with this finding. First, 45 CFR Part 1635 codifies the timekeeping requirement. CLS keeps track of every case and time dedicated by staff in strict compliance with this requirement. Manual adjustments primarily result from planned internal reconciliations and reviews designed to ensure the accuracy of CLS allocations. These reconciliations are conducted on a monthly basis and form an integral part of the Organization’s internal control framework. Additionally, with respect to the Native American grant transactions, CLS implemented the necessary correction to the referenced percentage effective beginning in 2026. Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: Management’s response did not persuade the auditor to revise the finding. Federal regulations specify that expenditures are allowable under an LSC (or federal) grant or contract only if the recipient can demonstrate that the cost was consistent with accounting policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both LSC (or, federal)-funded and non-LSC (of, federal) -funded activities.

Legal Services Corporation Grants – Assistance Listing No. 09.706060 Aging Cluster – Special Programs for the Aging, Title III, Part B – Assistance Listing No. 93.044 Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization consider updating its cost allocation methodology and process to reduce the frequency of manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data and maximize the use of automated allocations that are calculated in a consistent manner that ensure costs are applied uniformly to respective benefited activities, and that are reflective on employees’ time and effort records. We also recommend that the Organization maintain contemporaneous documentation supporting all cost allocations. Lastly, the Organization could consider removing LSC from the general fund into its own fund, and using fringe benefit rate and indirect cost rate allocation methods to simplify its cost allocation process. Explanation of Disagreement With Audit Finding: Management partially agrees with this finding. First, 45 CFR Part 1635 codifies the timekeeping requirement. CLS keeps track of every case and time dedicated by staff in strict compliance with this requirement. Manual adjustments primarily result from planned internal reconciliations and reviews designed to ensure the accuracy of CLS allocations. These reconciliations are conducted on a monthly basis and form an integral part of the Organization’s internal control framework. Action Taken in Response to Finding: Additionally, with respect to the Native American grant transactions, CLS implemented the necessary correction to the referenced percentage effective beginning in 2026. Name of the Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: Silvia Zelaya, Finance Director Planned Completion Date for Corrective Action Plan: January 2027

2024-002, 2024-004

Criteria or Specific Requirement: Federal regulations (45 CFR 1635.4(a) and 2 CFR 200.430), state that federal award recipients must base allocations of salaries and wages costs to grants on records that accurately reflect the work performed. Federal regulations (45 CFR 1630.5 and 2 CFR 200.403) state that expenditures are allowable under an LSC (or federal) grant or contract only if the recipient can demonstrate that the cost was consistent with accounting policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both LSC (or, federal)-funded and non-LSC (of, federal) -funded activities. Condition: During our testing we noted:  Payroll transactions: Eleven instances of errors totaling a net amount of $2,009 (an absolute value amount of $2,009) where the incorrect percentages were utilized in the allocation of the employee's pay, the incorrect employee's time was used in the allocation of the employee's pay, or there were unsupported amounts added to the allocation of the employee’s pay, and  Payroll transactions: Seven instances of errors totaling a net amount of $109 (an absolute value amount of $4,405) where an unsupported allocation percentage was used to allocate the employee's pay to the grant - typically, employee salaries are allocated to LSC and two other private grants using an allocation base of a LSC cost driver for the period divided by the total cost driver coded to the Organization’s general fund.  Fringe-benefit transactions: Two instances of an error totaling $91 where an unsupported allocation percentage was used to allocate employer-paid employee insurance costs to the grant - typically, costs are allocated to LSC and two other private grants using an allocation base of a LSC cost driver for the period divided by the total cost driver coded to the Organization’s general fund.  Fringe-benefit transactions: Two instances of errors totaling $275 where employer-paid employee insurance and HSA contribution deductions per the employee's pay stub were allocated to the grant at a rate of 100%.  Non-payroll and fringe transactions: one instance of an error totaling $884 where an unsupported allocation percentage was used to allocate general costs to the grant - typically, costs are allocated to LSC and two other private grants using an allocation base of a LSC cost driver for the period divided by the total cost driver coded to the Organization’s general fund. Additionally, we noted inconsistency in the general fund (LSC and two other private grants) allocation basis used during the year - grant hours and projected revenue were both utilized at different times during the year. Additionally, we noted that allocations in the general fund are done using projected revenue. However as revenue was recognized as expenses were incurred for the general fund the allocation based on revenue approximated an allocation method based on costs. As such, the costs mentioned above were allocated in an inconsistent manner to other grant costs and were not fully representative of the employees’ time and effort. However, we noted a lower frequency of differences in sample selections that occurred during the last several months of the year after management implemented a change to its allocation processes in response to the prior year audit. 2024 – 002: Cost Allocation of Expenses to LSC Grants (Continued) Questioned Costs: A net amount of $3,150 of allocated salary expense described above, which is related to Assistance Listing Number 09.706060. Context: These 23 instances were noting during testing of 55 disbursements. Cause: The Organization’s cost allocation methodology is primarily based on time and effort records, and periodic calculations of a LSC cost driver for the period divided by the total cost driver coded to the Organization’s general fund, but it often includes manual adjustments based on review of individual time records, expense and other data. Therefore, the methodology is challenging to apply consistently, document contemporaneously, and apply in accordance with federal regulations. Effect: The inclusion of frequent manual adjustments in the Organization’s cost allocation methodology could cause costs to be allocated to grants that are not reflective of the time and effort spent on grant activities and in a manner where costs are not applied uniformly to both LSC (or, federally)-funded and non-LSC (of, federally) -funded activities. Repeat Finding: The finding is a repeat of findings in the immediately prior year. The prior year finding numbers were 2023-003 and 2023-004. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization consider updating its cost allocation methodology and process to reduce the frequency of manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data and maximize the use of automated allocations that are calculated in a consistent manner that ensure costs are applied uniformly to respective benefited activities, and that are reflective on employees’ time and effort records Views of responsible officials: Management partially agrees with this finding. First, 45 CFR Part 1635 codifies the timekeeping requirement. CLS keeps track of every case and time dedicated by staff in strict compliance with this requirement. Additionally, the distribution of expenses in the general fund, which includes LSC and two other funding sources, represents a fair method and allocation. Regarding the questioned costs, CLS disagrees with the finding of material weakness given the extremely low total dollar value. Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: Management’s response did not persuade the auditor to revise the finding. Federal regulations state that expenditures are allowable under an LSC (or federal) grant or contract only if the recipient can demonstrate that the cost was consistent with accounting policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both LSC (or, federal)-funded and non-LSC (of, federal) -funded activities.

Legal Services Corporation Grants – Assistance Listing No. 09.706060 Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization consider updating its cost allocation methodology and process to reduce the frequency of manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data and maximize the use of automated allocations that are calculated in a consistent manner that ensure costs are applied uniformly to respective benefited activities, and that are reflective on employees’ time and effort records Explanation of Disagreement With Audit Finding: Management partially agrees with this finding. First, 45 CFR Part 1635 codifies the timekeeping requirement. CLS keeps track of every case and time dedicated by staff in strict compliance with this requirement. Additionally, the distribution of expenses in the general fund, which includes LSC and two other funding sources, represents a fair method and allocation. Regarding the questioned costs, CLS disagrees with the finding of material weakness given the extremely low total dollar value. Action Taken in Response to Finding: The Organization will review this finding and current methodology and propose corrections as part of a broader review of its technologies. Name of the Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: Silvia Zelaya, Finance Director Planned Completion Date for Corrective Action Plan: January 2026

2023-003, 2023-004

Criteria or Specific Requirement: Federal regulations (CFR 200.403), state that allowable costs must be consistent with policies and procedures of federal award recipients that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the Organization. It also states that costs must be adequately documented. Condition: During our testing, we noted four instances of errors totaling a net error of $906 (an absolute value error of $1,030) where the incorrect number of hours were utilized in the allocation of the employee's pay, the incorrect employee's time was used in the allocation of the employee's pay, or there were unsupported amounts added to the allocation of the employee's pay. As such, the salary costs mentioned above were allocated in an inconsistent manner to other grant payroll costs and were not fully representative of the employees' time and effort and benefit obtained by grant from the allocated cost. Management noted that it performed year-end grant reconciliations to ensure costs were properly allocated to each grant in total. We noted a lower frequency of differences in sample selections that occurred during the last several months of the year after management implemented a change to its allocation processes in response to the prior year audit. Questioned Costs: $906 of allocated salaries expense described above, which is related to Assistance Listing Number 93.044. Context: These five instances were noting during testing of 26 payroll and payroll-related disbursements. Cause: The Organization’s salary, wage and employee benefit cost allocation methodology is primarily based on time and effort records and a periodic calculation of specific grant hours versus general fund hours multiplied by period costs, but it often includes manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data. Therefore, the methodology is challenging to apply consistently, document contemporaneously, and apply in accordance with federal regulations. Effect: The inclusion of frequent manual adjustments and varying allocation bases in the Organization’s salaries, wages, and employee benefit cost allocation methodology could cause costs to be allocated to grants that are not reflective of the time and effort spent on grant activities nor compensation paid to employees during relevant work periods. It could also lead to challenges in maintaining sufficient supporting documentation of such cost allocations. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization consider updating its salaries, wages, and employee benefit cost allocation methodology and process to reduce the frequency of manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data and maximize the use of automated allocations based on employees’ time and effort records, effective compensation during work periods, and that are calculated in a consistent manner. We also recommend that the Organization maintain contemporaneous documentation supporting all cost allocations. Views of responsible officials: Management does not agree with this finding. LSC program letter 22-5 emphasizes the importance of reconciliations of timekeeping reports with labor costs, distribution report or alternative reports. CLS prioritizes this practice of reconciliation and used it during the last months of 2024 to improve internal controls and minimize potential errors. We do not believe that CLA fully and fairly considered CLS’s thorough and complete reconciliation. A “material weakness” is defined as a deficiency “such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis.” Given that reconciliation is part of our internal control process used to prevent and detect/correct any errors, it should have been fully considered and is unfairly excluded from the review. For this reason, CLS considers that this is not a material weakness as the reconciliation caught and corrected these errors. Finally, the total amount of this finding is very low and should not rise to the level of material weakness. Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: Management’s response did not persuade the auditor to revise the finding. The aging cluster is not an LSC program and so its relevance to this finding is unclear. Federal regulations (CFR 200.403), state that allowable costs must be consistent with policies and procedures of federal award recipients that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the Organization. It also states that costs must be adequately documented. Such costs should be contemporaneously applied to grants as they are incurred using a system of processes and controls.

Aging Cluster – Special Programs for the Aging, Title III, Part B – Assistance Listing No. 93.044 Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization consider updating its salaries and wages cost allocation methodology and process to reduce the frequency of manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data and maximize the use of automated allocations based on employees’ time and effort records, effective compensation during work periods, and that are calculated in a consistent manner. We also recommend that the Organization maintain contemporaneous documentation supporting all cost allocations. Explanation of Disagreement With Audit Finding: Management does not agree with this finding. LSC program letter 22-5 emphasizes the importance of reconciliations of timekeeping reports with labor costs, distribution report or alternative reports. CLS prioritizes this practice of reconciliation and used it during the last months of 2024 to improve internal controls and minimize potential errors. We do not believe that CLA fully and fairly considered CLS’s thorough and complete reconciliation. A “material weakness” is defined as a deficiency “such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis.” Given that reconciliation is part of our internal control process used to prevent and detect/correct any errors, it should have been fully considered and is unfairly excluded from the review. For this reason, CLS considers that this is not a material weakness as the reconciliation caught and corrected these errors. Finally, the total amount of this finding is very low and should not rise to the level of material weakness. Action Taken in Response to Finding: The Organization will review this finding and current methodology and propose corrections as part of a broader review of its technologies. Name of the Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: Silvia Zelaya, Finance Director Planned Completion Date for Corrective Action Plan: January 2026

2023-003, 2023-004

2023 – 003: Cost Allocation of Salaries and Wages to LSC Grants Federal Agency: Legal Services Corporation (LSC) Federal Program Name: LSC Grants Assistance Listing Number: 09.706060 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: 09-706060 - 2023 Award Period: January 1, 2023 – December 31, 2023 Type of Finding:  Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance  Other Matters Criteria or specific requirement: Federal regulations (45 CFR 1635.4(a) and 2 CFR 200.430), state that federal award recipients must base allocations of salaries and wages costs to grants on records that accurately reflect the work performed. Condition: During our testing we noted:  Two instances of employees’ pay period salaries totaling $1,742 being allocated to a grant using a flat percentage of 10%, and  One instance of an employee’s pay period salary of $147 being allocated to two grants using a combination of their time an effort on those grants while the remaining portion of the employee’s salary was allocated to LSC and two other private grants using a base of total grant hours for the period divided by total hours coded to the Organization’s general fund. As such, the salary costs mentioned above were allocated in an inconsistent manner to other grant payroll costs and were not fully representative of the employees’ time and effort. Questioned costs: $1,742 of allocated salary expense described above, which is related to Assistance Listing Number 09.706060. Context: These three instances were noting during testing of 26 payroll and payroll-related disbursements. Cause: The Organization’s salaries and wages cost allocation methodology is primarily based on time and effort records, but it often includes manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data. Therefore, the methodology is challenging to apply consistently, document contemporaneously, and apply in accordance with federal regulations. Effect: The inclusion of frequent manual adjustments in the Organization’s salaries and wages cost allocation methodology could cause costs to be allocated to grants that are not reflective of the time and effort spent on grant activities. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization consider updating its salaries and wages cost allocation methodology and process to reduce the frequency of manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data and maximize the use of automated allocations based on employees’ time and effort records. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding

Legal Services Corporation Grants – Assistance Listing No. 09.706060 Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization consider updating its salaries and wages cost allocation methodology and process to reduce the frequency of manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data and maximize the use of automated allocations based on employees’ time and effort records. Explanation of disagreement with audit finding: There is no disagreement with this finding. Action taken in response to finding: The Organization will review this finding and current methodology and propose corrections as part of a broader review of its technologies. Name of the contact person responsible for corrective action: Silvia Zelaya, Finance Director Planned completion date for corrective action plan: January 2025

2023 – 004: Cost Allocation of Fringe Benefits to LSC Grants Federal Agency: Legal Services Corporation (LSC) Federal Program Name: LSC Native American Grant Assistance Listing Number: 09.706060 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: 09-706060 - 2023 Award Period: January 1, 2023 – December 31, 2023 Type of Finding:  Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance  Other Matters Criteria or specific requirement: Federal regulations (45 CFR 1630.5 and 2 CFR 200.403) state that expenditures are allowable under an LSC (or federal) grant or contract only if the recipient can demonstrate that the cost was consistent with accounting policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both LSC (or, federal)-funded and non-LSC (of, federal) -funded activities. Condition: During our testing we noted that 100% of medical insurance for a specific location was allocated to the grant. However, we noted that medical insurance for other pay periods and locations were allocated on a trimester basis using an allocation base of total grant hours for the period divided by total general fund hours. As such, the fringe benefit cost mentioned above was allocated in an inconsistent manner to other grant fringe benefit costs was not fully representative of the employees’ time and effort. However, management noted that these costs were allocated in a manner to comply with 45 CFR 1630.5(g) which allows LSC award recipients to allocate proportional share of another funding source’s share of an indirect cost to LSC funds. Questioned costs: None. Context: This single instance was noted during testing of 26 payroll and payroll-related disbursements. Cause: The Organization’s employee benefit cost allocation methodology is primarily based on a periodic calculation of grant hours versus general fund hours multiplied by period costs, but it often includes manual adjustments based on review of individual expense data. Therefore, the methodology is challenging to apply consistently, document contemporaneously, and apply in accordance with federal regulations. Effect: The inclusion of frequent manual adjustments in the Organization’s employee benefit cost allocation methodology could cause costs to be allocated to grants in a manner where costs are not applied uniformly to both LSC (or, federal)-funded and non-LSC (of, federal) -funded activities. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization consider updating its employee benefit cost allocation methodology and process to reduce the frequency of manual adjustments based on review of expense data and maximize the use of automated allocations that are calculated in a consistent manner that ensure costs are applied uniformly to respective benefited activities. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding

Legal Services Corporation Grants – Assistance Listing No. 09.706060 Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization consider updating its employee benefit cost allocation methodology and process to reduce the frequency of manual adjustments based on review of expense data and maximize the use of automated allocations that are calculated in a consistent manner that ensure costs are applied uniformly to respective benefited activities. Explanation of disagreement with audit finding: There is no disagreement with this finding. Action taken in response to finding: The Organization will review this finding and current methodology and propose corrections as part of a broader review of its technologies. Name of the contact person responsible for corrective action: Silvia Zelaya, Finance Director Planned completion date for corrective action plan: January 2025

2023 – 009: Cost Allocation of Compensation to Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Grants Federal Agency: Department of Treasury Federal Program Name: COVID-19: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery, Various – See SEFA Assistance Listing Number: 21.027 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: Various – See SEFA Pass-Through Agency: Various – See SEFA Pass-Through Numbers: Various – See SEFA Award Period: Various – see SEFA Type of Finding:  Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance  Other Matters Criteria or specific requirement: Federal regulations (CFR 200.403), state that allowable costs must be consistent with policies and procedures of federal award recipients that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the Organization. It also states that costs must be adequately documented. Condition: During our testing, we noted that:  We were unable to view evidence for one allocation of $23 of medical insurance expenses for one employee related to one month.  Three allocations of medical and dental insurance expenses totaling $1,903 were allocated using the percentage of total grant hours of the period instead of the percentage of total grant salary expense, which was the base used for other similar benefit expense allocations. We were unable to view support of the allocation based on total grant hours for the period. These amounts appeared to be under allocated by $549.  One salary allocation of $848 appeared to be under allocated by $1,689 when compared to time and effort records and compensation information. We were unable to see evidence that supported the allocation. As such, the salary costs and fringe mentioned above were allocated in an inconsistent manner to other grant payroll costs were not fully representative of the employees’ time and effort and benefit obtained by grant from the allocated cost. Questioned costs: $23 of allocated medical insurance expense described above, which is related to Assistance Listing Number 21.027 and the Eviction Clinic grant passed through from Arapahoe County. Context: These six instances were noting during testing of 47 payroll and payroll-related disbursements. Cause: The Organization’s salary, wage and employee benefit cost allocation methodology is primarily based on time and effort records and a periodic calculation of grant hours versus general fund hours multiplied by period costs, but it often includes manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data. Management also sometimes allocates employee benefit expense using a base of total grant salary expense for a period when compared to total salary expense for the same period. Therefore, the methodology is challenging to apply consistently, document contemporaneously, and apply in accordance with federal regulations. Effect: The inclusion of frequent manual adjustments and varying allocation bases in the Organization’s salaries, wages, and employee benefit cost allocation methodology could cause costs to be allocated to grants that are not reflective of the time and effort spent on grant activities nor compensation paid to employees during relevant work periods. It would also lead to challenges in maintaining sufficient supporting documentation of such cost allocations. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization consider updating its salaries, wages, and employee benefit cost allocation methodology and process to reduce the frequency of manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data and maximize the use of automated allocations based on employees’ time and effort records, effective compensation during work periods, and that are calculated in a consistent manner. We also recommend that the Organization maintain contemporaneous documentation supporting all cost allocations. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding

COIVD-19: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery – Assistance Listing No. 21.027 Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization consider updating its salaries, wages, and employee benefit cost allocation methodology and process to reduce the frequency of manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data and maximize the use of automated allocations based on employees’ time and effort records, effective compensation during work periods, and that are calculated in a consistent manner. We also recommend that the Organization maintain contemporaneous documentation supporting all cost allocations. Explanation of disagreement with audit finding: There is no disagreement with this finding. Action taken in response to finding: The Organization is updating the segregation of duties in order to improve the preparation, review and sign steps of the process. Name of the contact person responsible for corrective action: Silvia Zelaya, Finance Director Planned completion date for corrective action plan: January 2025

2023 – 010: Review of Indirect Cost Rate Claims related to Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Grants Federal Agency: Department of Treasury Federal Program Name: COVID-19: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery, Various – See SEFA Assistance Listing Number: 21.027 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: Various – See SEFA Pass-Through Agency: Various – See SEFA Pass-Through Numbers: Various – See SEFA Award Period: Various – see SEFA Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance Criteria or specific requirement: Federal regulations (CFR 200.303), state federal award recipients must establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal award recipients are managing federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of federal awards. Condition: During our testing, we were unable to see evidence of review and approval of two indirect cost claims by someone other than the preparer of the Organization’s indirect cost claims. Questioned costs: None Context: These instances were noted during the recalculation of the Organization’s indirect cost rate claim on two separate grants. Cause: The Organization does not have a process in place that documents review and approval of submitted indirect cost claims. Effect: The lack of such a control process could result in the Organization claiming incorrect amounts of indirect costs for reimbursement. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization consider implementing a process that documents review and approval of submitted indirect cost claims by someone other than the preparer of such claims. Documentation of contemporaneous review should also be maintained. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding

COIVD-19: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery – Assistance Listing No. 21.027 Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization consider implementing a process that documents review and approval of submitted indirect cost claims by someone other than the preparer of such claims. Documentation of contemporaneous review should also be maintained. Explanation of disagreement with audit finding: There is no disagreement with this finding. Action taken in response to finding: The organization will review this finding and current methodology and propose corrections as part of a broader review of its technologies. Name of the contact person responsible for corrective action: Silvia Zelaya, Finance Director Planned completion date for corrective action plan: January 2025