Expert Answer:Grantee Evaluation discussion

  

Solved by verified expert:My part is to write a 130-150 word paragraph on 3 Things the Grantee did correctly. I have attached the file below for your viewing and guidance.
audit_of_the_office.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Expert Answer:Grantee Evaluation discussion
Just from $10/Page
Order Essay

Audit of the Office of Justice
Programs Correctional Systems
and Correctional Alternatives on
Tribal Lands Program Grant
Awarded to the Eight Northern
Indian Pueblos Council
Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico
Audit Division GR-60-16-001
REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
November 2015
AUDIT OF THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS
CORRECTIONAL SYSTEMS AND CORRECTIONAL ALTERNATIVES
ON TRIBAL LANDS PROGRAM GRANT AWARDED TO THE
EIGHT NORTHERN INDIAN PUEBLOS COUNCIL
OHKAY OWINGEH, NEW MEXICO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ∗
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
completed an audit of the grant awarded by the Office of Justice Programs (OJP),
Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), under the Correctional Systems and
Correctional Alternatives on Tribal Lands (CSCATL) Program, to the Eight Northern
Indian Pueblos Council (ENIPC) in Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico. The ENIPC was
awarded $5,636,317 under Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0077 to construct an
alternative substance abuse treatment facility for juveniles.
The objective of this audit was to determine whether costs claimed under the
grant were allowable, supported, and in accordance with applicable laws,
regulations, guidelines, and terms and conditions. To accomplish this objective, we
assessed performance in the following areas of grant management: financial
management, expenditures, budget management and control, drawdowns, federal
financial reports, and program performance. The criteria we audited against are
contained in the OJP Financial Guide, Title 28 of the U.S. Code of Federal
Regulations, and the grant award documents.
As of March 2014, the ENIPC had drawn down $5,636,317 of the total grant
funds awarded. We examined the ENIPC’s policies and procedures, accounting
records, and financial and progress reports, and found that the ENIPC did not
comply with essential award conditions related to the use of funds and grant
matching. Specifically, the ENIPC: (1) incurred $20,659 ($10,443 + $10,215) in
unallowable costs for items purchased after the grant end date and unbudgeted
indirect costs charged to the grant; and (2) allocated $626,257 in unsupported
costs to the grant match.
Our report contains two recommendations to OJP that are detailed in the
Findings and Recommendations section of this report. Our audit objective, scope,
and methodology are discussed in Appendix 1 and our Schedule of Dollar-Related
Findings appears in Appendix 2. We discussed the results of our audit with ENIPC
officials and have included their comments in the report, as applicable. In addition,
we requested a response to our draft audit report from OJP and the ENIPC; their
responses are appended to the final audit report as appendices 3 and 4,
respectively.

A redaction was made to the full version of this report for privacy reasons. The redaction is
contained only in Appendix 4, the auditee’s response, and is of individuals’ names in e-mail
addresses.
i
AUDIT OF THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS
CORRECTIONAL SYSTEMS AND CORRECTIONAL ALTERNATIVES
ON TRIBAL LANDS PROGRAM GRANT AWARDED TO THE
EIGHT NORTHERN INDIAN PUEBLOS COUNCIL
OHKAY OWINGEH, NEW MEXICO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………………… 1
Audit Approach …………………………………………………………………………. 1
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS………………………………………………………. 3
Grant Financial Management ………………………………………………………… 3
Grant Expenditures ……………………………………………………………………. 3
Direct Costs …………………………………………………………………….. 3
Indirect Costs…………………………………………………………………… 4
Matching Costs …………………………………………………………………. 4
Budget Management and Control …………………………………………………… 5
Drawdowns ……………………………………………………………………………… 6
Federal Financial Reports …………………………………………………………….. 6
Program Performance and Accomplishments …………………………………….. 7
Categorical Assistance Progress Reports ………………………………….. 7
Program Goals and Objectives ………………………………………………. 7
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………. 7
Recommendations……………………………………………………………………… 7
APPENDIX 1: OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY ……………………………….. 9
APPENDIX 2: SCHEDULE OF DOLLAR-RELATED FINDINGS…………………………… 10
APPENDIX 3: OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT
REPORT…………………………………………………………………………………….. 11
APPENDIX 4: THE EIGHT NORTHERN INDIAN PUEBLOS COUNCIL
OHKAY OWINGEH, NEW MEXICO RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT …………. 14
APPENDIX 5: OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY
OF ACTIONS NECESSARY TO CLOSE THE REPORT ………………………………… 18
AUDIT OF THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS
CORRECTIONAL SYSTEMS AND CORRECTIONAL ALTERNATIVES
ON TRIBAL LANDS PROGRAM GRANT AWARDED TO THE
EIGHT NORTHERN INDIAN PUEBLOS COUNCIL
OHKAY OWINGEH, NEW MEXICO
INTRODUCTION
The u.s. Department of Justice (OOJ) Office of the Inspector Genera l (OIG)
completed an audit of the grant awarded by the Office of Justice Pro grams (OJP),
Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), under the Correctiona l Systems a nd
Correctiona l Alternatives on Tribal Lands (CSCATL) Program, to the Eight Northern
Indian Pueblos Council ( ENIPC) in Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico. 1 The ENIPC was
awarded one grant totaling $5,636,3 17 as shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Grants Awarded to the ENIPC
Funding through t he CSCATL Program supports efforts related to plann ing,
constructing, and renovating t riba l justice facilities associated with the
incarceration and rehabilitation of juvenile and adu lt offenders subject to triba l
jurisdiction, including exploring community – based alternatives. In 2010, the
CSCATL Program was modified to allow the use of funds to construct multipurpose
justice centers that combine tribal po lice, courts, and corrections services. 2
Audit Approach
The objective of this audit was to determine whether costs claimed under
the grant were allowable, supported, and in accorda nce with applicab le laws,
regulations, guidelines, and ter ms and conditions. To accomplish this objective,
we assessed performance in the fo llowing areas of grant management : financia l
management, expenditures, budget management and control, drawdowns,
fede ral financial reports, and program performance.
We tested compliance with what we consider to be the most important
conditions of the g rant. The criteria we aud ited against are contained in the OJP
Financia l Guide, Title 28 of the u.s. Code of Federa l Regu lations, and the grant
I
Th is program was formerly referred to as t he Correctional Facilities on Tribal Lands
Program.
2
42
u.s.c.
§1 3709
1
award documents. The results of our analysis are discussed in detail in the
Findings and Recommendations section of the report. Appendix 1 contains
additional information on this audit’s objective, scope, and methodology. The
Schedule of Dollar-Related Findings appears in Appendix 2.
2
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OJP awarded the ENIPC Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0077 for $5,636,317
to construct an alternative substance abuse treatment facility for juveniles. 3 The
objective of Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0077 was to build an alternative
substance abuse treatment facility for juveniles in Taos, New Mexico.
Grant Financial Management
According to the OJP Financial Guide, all grant recipients and subrecipients
are required to establish and maintain adequate accounting systems and financial
records and to accurately account for funds awarded to them. We reviewed the
ENIPC’s Single Audit Reports for fiscal years 2013 and 2014 to identify internal
control weaknesses and significant non-compliance issues related to federal awards.
We also conducted interviews with financial staff, examined policy and procedures,
and inspected grant documents to determine whether the ENIPC adequately
safeguards grant funds.
Based on our review, we did not identify any concerns related to grant
financial management.
Grant Expenditures
For Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0077, the ENIPC approved budget included
personnel and fringe benefits, travel, equipment, supplies, construction,
consultant/contracts, indirect and other direct costs. To determine whether costs
charged to the awards were allowable, supported, and properly allocated in
compliance with award requirements, we tested all 62 transactions totaling
$5,536,317. The following sections describe the results of that testing.
Direct Costs
The majority of grant transactions included expenditures for construction,
equipment, and travel. During our review, we verified that grant expenditures were
adequately supported by documentation and were for purposes that supported
grant objectives. We identified total questioned costs of $10,443. We found
7 unallowable transactions totaling $10,443 for items the ENIPC purchased more
than 15 days after the grant end date. Specifically, we found that the ENIPC
charged:

$6,469 for 13 computers,

$1,825 for 12 printers,

$2,084 for Microsoft Office Licenses, and
3
The ENIPC originally planned to build an alternative sentencing facility for adults; however,
the ENIPC received OJP approval through a GAN to revise the project scope from an adult to a juvenile
facility.
3

$65 for window blinds.
We recommend that OJP remedy $10,443 for expenditures that occurred
after the grant end date.
Indirect Costs
Indirect costs are costs of an organization that are not readily assignable to a
particular project, but are necessary to the operation of the organization and the
performance of the project. OJP approved indirect costs for
Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0077, and the ENIPC had an approved indirect cost rate
of 19.8 percent.
The OJP Financial Guide requires a Grant Adjustment Notice (GAN) if there is
any dollar increase or decrease to the indirect costs category of an approved
budget. The ENIPC originally budgeted $1.145 million in indirect costs to the grant.
However, in August 2013, the ENIPC requested and received approval for a GAN
from OJP for a revised grant budget. Under the GAN, the ENIPC revised the grant
budget to reflect a reduction of $1,076,203 in the budgeted amount for indirect
costs and an allocation of all indirect costs of $68,797 to the grant’s matching
requirement, thereby removing any indirect costs budgeted to the grant. However,
at the time OJP approved the GAN, the ENIPC had already charged and received
reimbursement for $10,215 in indirect costs under the grant. We found that the
ENIPC did not apply any indirect costs to the match requirement or remove the
$10,215 previously charged to the grant for indirect costs. Therefore, we question
the $10,215 in indirect costs as unallowable. We recommend that OJP remedy
$10,215 in unbudgeted indirect costs that were charged to the grant.
Matching Costs
Matching costs are the grant recipient’s share of the total project costs. The
OJP Financial Guide requires grant recipients to maintain records which clearly show
the source, the amount, and the timing of all matching contributions. The ENIPC
was required to expend $626,257 in local funds for Grant
Number 2009-ST-B9-0077, which represents a 10-percent local match. We
assessed matching expenditures applied to the grant and determined the accuracy,
support, and allowability of expenditures with matching funds. The ENIPC applied
personnel and fringe benefit costs, and land valuation, to satisfy the 10-percent
match requirement.
According to their accounting records, the ENIPC applied personnel costs for
six employees totaling $69,572 in order to satisfy a portion of their match
requirement under Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0077. For the personnel costs
applied to the match, the ENIPC applied a percentage of each employee’s salary
based on the percentage of time each employee worked on grant activities.
Therefore, we reviewed the ENIPC documentation related to those personnel costs,
but were unable to verify the salary amounts charged for the six employees.
Additionally, the ENIPC documentation did not include timesheets for all six
employees and we were unable to verify the time expended on grant and non-grant
4
related activities for the six employees. According to Special Condition 13, the
recipient agrees to track, account for, and report on all funds from the Recovery Act
award separately from all other funds. Further, all personnel whose activities are to
be charged to the award will maintain timesheets to document hours worked for
activities related to the award and non-award related activities. Therefore, we
determined that the $69,572 in personnel costs the ENIPC applied to the match
were not adequately supported in accordance with the OJP Financial Guide and
Special Condition 13.
The ENIPC also applied $16,685 in fringe benefits costs to the match
requirement for the six employees. As previously stated, we were unable to verify
the salary amounts allocated to the match. Since the ENIPC used a percentage of
employee salaries and the ENIPC did not break out the fringe benefits costs applied
per employee, we could not verify the fringe benefits match amounts applied per
employee. Therefore, we determined the $16,685 in fringe benefit costs applied to
the match were not adequately supported in accordance with the OJP Financial
Guide.
Finally, the ENIPC applied $540,000 in land valuation to the match
requirement. The land is located in Taos, New Mexico, where the ENIPC built the
alternative treatment facility. To support the land match, the ENIPC provided a
lease for the land with Taos Pueblo, but the land lease did not identify any value for
the land. 4 Therefore, we determined the $540,000 in land valuation applied to the
match was not adequately supported in accordance with the OJP Financial Guide.
As previously stated, the ENIPC was required to expend $626,257 in local
funds for Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0077. We determined the entire match
amount of $626,257 was unsupported because the ENIPC did not maintain
adequate records in accordance with the OJP Financial Guide. Therefore, we
recommend that OJP remedies the $626,257 in unsupported matching allocations.
Budget Management and Control
According to the OJP Financial Guide, the recipient is responsible for
establishing and maintaining an adequate accounting system, which includes the
ability to compare actual expenditures or outlays with budgeted amounts for each
award. Additionally, the grant recipient must initiate a GAN for a budget
modification that reallocates funds among budget categories if the proposed
cumulative change is greater than 10 percent of the total award amount.
Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0077 was designated as a construction grant,
therefore, we determined that the ENIPC was required to follow 28 CFR 66.30 (c).
According to 28 CFR 66.30 (c), construction grants to state and local government
do not require grantees to request approval for any deviations from the budget
unless additional grant funds are necessary. As a result, we found the 10-percent
rule does not apply.
4
Taos Pueblo, a member of the Eight Northern Indian Pueblos, provided the land to the
ENIPC for the alternative treatment facility.
5
Drawdowns
According to the OJP Financial Guide, an adequate accounting system should
be established to maintai n documentation t o support all receipt s of federal funds.
If at the end of the grant award, recipients have drawn d ow n funds in excess of
fede ral expend itures, unused funds m ust be returned t o the awarding agency. We
we re u nable to speak with the ENIPC per sonnel w ho were responsible fo r
drawdowns because t hey we re no longer employed by the ENIPC; however, we did
not find any issues wi th the grant drawdowns.
At the time of this audit, Grant Number 2009-ST-69-0077 was full y drawn
down. To assess w hether the ENIPC managed grant receipts in accordance with
feder al requirements, we co mpared the t ota l amount reimbursed t o the t otal
expenditures in the accounting reco rds. We determined that the ENIPC complied
with the requirement, as total expenditures we re equa l t o cum ulative drawdowns as
of January 2, 2014.
Federal Financial Reports
Accord ing to the OJP Finan cial Gu ide, recipients shall report the actual
expenditures and un liquidated obliga ti ons incurred for the reporting period on each
financial report. To determine whether the Federa l Finan cial Reports ( FFR)
submitted by the ENIPC we re accurate, we compared the fou r most recent reports
t o the ENIPC’s accounting records fo r Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0077. As shown
in Table 2 , we identified a discrepancy between t he expe nditures in the accounting
records and w hat the ENIPC reported in the final FFR for Grant Number 2009-ST­
B9-0077.
Table 2
FFR Analysis
REPORT
PERIOD TO
DATES
PERIOD
EXPENDITURES
PER FFR
PERIOD
EXPENDITURES
PER FFR
ACCOUNTING
RECORDS
1/1/2013
3/31/2013
$0
$0
$0
4/1/2013
6/30/2013
$1 1 26476
$1 126476
$0
7/1/2013
9/30/2013
$3025 247
$3 025 247
$0
10/1/2013
11/30/2013
$ 1422786
$1 076446
$346 340
REPORT
PERIOD
FROM
OATES
PERIOD
DIFFERENCE
Source: OJP and the ENIPC
During our audit, we found that $ 335 ,896 of the difference occurred due to
the timing of expenditures the ENIPC reco rded in their accounting records.
However, the remaining $ 10,44 3 was due to expenditures for items the ENIPC
incurred after the grant end date, as discussed p reviously in this report. :’)
:’) Difference due t o round ing.
6
Program Performance and Accomplishments
We reviewed the Categorical Assistance Progress Reports (progress
reports), which are completed semiannually, to determine if the required reports
are accurate. We also reviewed the grant documentation, and interviewed ENIPC
officials to determine whether the ENIPC implemented the program goals and
objectives.
Categorical Assistance Progress Reports
According to the OJP Financial Guide, the funding recipient should ensure
that valid and auditable source documentation is available to support all data
collected for each performance measure specified in the program solicitation. In
order to verify the information in progress reports, we selected a sample of
performance measures from the two most recent progress reports submitted for
Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0077. We then traced the items to supporting
documentation maintained by the ENIPC. Based on our progress report testing, we
did not identify any instances where the accomplishments described in the progress
reports did not match the supporting documentation.
Program Goals and Objectives
The objective of Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0077 was to construct an
alternative substance abuse treatment facility for Native American juveniles ages
12 to 21 in the region. The ENIPC completed the overall objective of constructing
the facility and OJP closed out the grant on April 3, 2014. We toured the facility
and interviewed ENIPC personnel who explained they were very satisfied with the
results of the construction. Based on our observations, there were no indications
that the ENIPC did not meet the stated objectives of the grant.
Conclusion
The objective of this audit was to determine whether costs claimed under the
grant were allowable, supported, and in accordance with applicable laws,
regulations, guidelines, and terms and conditions. We examined the ENIPC’ …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

Place your order
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Urgency
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more

Order your essay today and save 30% with the discount code ESSAYSHELP