U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFFICE OF COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES

GRANT TO THE CLEVELAND, OHIO POLICE DEPARTMENT

Award Numbers 95-CN-WX-0005, 95-CL-WX-0023,

95-CC-WX-0355, and 95-TC-WX-1190

Audit Report Number GR-50-98-033

September 23, 1998

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Office of the Inspector General, Audit Division, has completed an audit of grants awarded by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), to the Cleveland, Ohio Police Department (CPD). The CPD was awarded $4,575,000 under COPS Accelerated Hiring, Education, and Development (AHEAD) and the supplemental Universal Hiring Program (UHP) to hire 61 officers. In addition, the CPD received $1,305,445 under the Making Officer Redeployment Effective (MORE) to redeploy 31.5 full-time equivalents (FTE) over 3 years into community policing, and $634,842 under the Youth Firearms Violence Initiative (YFVI) to develop innovative community policing and enforcement efforts to curb the rise of youth firearms violence. The CPD was also awarded a $20,000 TROOPS TO COPS grant to train four separated members of the armed forces as law enforcement officers. The purpose of the grants is to enhance community policing efforts.

In brief, our audit revealed the following:

• The average officers' salaries and benefits in the CPD's approved budgets were overstated. As a result, the grant awards for the AHEAD, supplemental UHP, and YFVI grants were overstated by about $14,667, $287,431, and $35,188, respectively. Accordingly, these grants should be adjusted downward by a total of about $337,286.

• The CPD did not establish and maintain an adequate accounting system to accumulate and summarize COPS grant expenditures. Reimbursement requests were based on estimated costs. As a result, reimbursements under the COPS AHEAD exceeded the 53 percent specified in the approved budget by 27 percent. We question $194,860 overstated reimbursement.

• Costs charged to the AHEAD and supplemental UHP grant awards were not in accordance with grant requirements because the CPD received reimbursement but did not maintain the minimum number of officers required under the grants. Consequently, we question $208,651 and $219,223 for the AHEAD and UHP grants, respectively.

• Reimbursements requested and received under the YFVI award exceeded allowable costs. This occurred because the CPD charged costs to and requested reimbursement from the grant after the grant expired on September 30, 1996. In addition, for the 3rd quarter of 1996, the CPD charged the salaries and benefits of 11 officers to the grant, while only 10 officers were redeployed during that period. Consequently, we question $112,729 overstated reimbursement.

• The CPD did not track the number of FTEs redeployed into community policing. By law, the funds requested under COPS MORE must result in an increase in the number of FTEs deployed into community policing. However, since the CPD did not maintain adequate officer redeployment records, we were unable to determine whether the COPS MORE grant resulted in an increase in FTEs redeployed into community policing. As a result, we question $684,906 charged to the grant as unsupported and recommend the remaining $620,539 be withheld until the CPD starts tracking redeployment.

• Seven of 34 Financial Status Reports were not submitted to OJP, while another 25 were submitted late. In addition, while all funds awarded under the TROOPS TO COPS grant were drawn down in May 1996, as of the time of our audit, the final Financial Status Report for this grant had not been filed. Further, except for the TROOPS TO COPS grant, costs reported in the Financial Status Reports were not accurate.

#####