The Office of the Inspector General (OIG), Audit Division, has completed an audit of the Kane County Drug Rehabilitation Court (KCDRC), Grant Number 2003‑DD‑BX‑1033, in the amount of $940,560 awarded by the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA).1 The goals of this grant were to hire additional staff to expand the ability to monitor and supervise cases assigned to the existing KCDRC program, provide administrative support to the KCDRC, and administer drug testing. The purpose of the grant was to fund salary and fringe benefit costs of certain drug court employees and to pay contractual drug testers to perform drug testing of defendants admitted into the drug rehabilitation program. Additionally, the grant funded the purchase of two vehicles for the KCDRC staff to conduct home and employment site visits.
The KCDRC is a component of the Illinois 16th Judicial Circuit Court in St. Charles, Illinois. The KCDRC was established in August 2000 to provide an alternative to incarceration for defendants whose behavior is linked to the abuse of drugs. The court is specifically for repeat felony offenders who are caught in a cycle of drug addiction, which spins off to criminal activity. To be admitted into the drug rehabilitation program, defenders must plead guilty to the charge before the court. Participation is voluntary and there is a minimum 2-year commitment. Defendants accepted in the program are required to have weekly court appearances with treatment providers and drug court staff, and they are drug tested three times per week at one of four sites maintained by the KCDRC.
The purpose of this audit was to determine whether reimbursements claimed for costs under the grant were allowable, supported, and in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, guidelines, and terms and conditions of the grant; and to determine program performance and accomplishments. The objective of our audit was to review performance in the following areas: (1) internal control environment; (2) drawdowns; (3) grant expenditures, including personnel costs and indirect costs; (4) budget management and control; (5) matching cost requirements; (6) property management; (7) program income; (8) financial status and progress reports; (9) grant requirements; (10) program performance and accomplishments; and (11) monitoring of contractors and subgrantees. We determined that indirect costs, matching costs, program income, and monitoring of subgrantees were not applicable to this grant. As shown in Table 1, KCDRC was awarded a total of $940,560.
TABLE 1. KANE COUNTY DRUG REHABILITATION COURT GRANT
We found that the grantee’s budget management and control, performance against grant objectives, and its monitoring of contractors were generally satisfactory. However, we identified that Kane County failed to maintain accounting records segregated from other revenues collected by the KCDRC, had several weaknesses in grant drawdowns and grant expenditures, and had discrepancies in financial reporting. In addition, two vehicles purchased with grant funds were not documented as federally funded in the property records. As a result, we identified $4,812 in dollar-related findings:2
- The OJP Financial Guide states that the grantee is required to establish and maintain accounting systems and financial records to accurately account for funds awarded to them. However, the KCDRC account assigned to the DOJ grant included County revenue and investment income. As a result, we could not identify which expenditures were reimbursed by OJP.
- The OJP Financial Guide states recipients should time drawdown requests to ensure that federal cash on hand is the minimum needed to pay for actual or anticipated costs within 10 days. However, the KCDRC drew down excess funds without expending them within the required 10-day timeframe.
- The KCDRC charged the grant for unallowable personal and mileage expenses and for unapproved training, travel, and conference fees. In addition, Kane County did not fully rectify a duplicate payment that it had identified. In total, the KCDRC charged a total of $4,812 in unapproved and unallowable costs to the grant; therefore, we questioned these costs.
- Two vehicles purchased with grant funds were not recognized as federally funded properties in the grantee’s fixed asset records.
- The KCDRC FSR’s did not accurately report financial activity within the period.
These items are discussed in detail in the Findings and Recommendations section of the report. Our audit objectives, scope, and methodology are discussed in Appendix I.
- The KCDRC was awarded a grant and two supplements with the same goals and objectives. The project start dates of both supplements reverted to the original grant’s project start date. As a result, we reviewed the grant as one award.
- The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, contains our reporting requirements for questioned costs and funds put to better use. However, not all findings are dollar-related. See Appendix II for a breakdown of our dollar-related findings and for a definition of questioned costs.