Audit Report


Office of Justice Programs

Drug Court Implementation Initiative to the

New York State Unified Court System

Grant Number 95-DC-MX-0064



September 22, 1998




The Office of the Inspector General, Audit Division, has completed an audit of grant number 95-DC-MX-0064, awarded by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Justice Programs (OJP) to the New York State Unified Court System (Unified Court). The Unified Court received a grant of $996,000 and sub-granted the total amount to the Fund for the City of New York (the Fund). The Fund is a non-profit organization that supports and administers public and private projects to improve the effectiveness of government and the quality of life in New York City. The Fund used the sub-grant to implement a drug treatment court in Brooklyn. In April 1998, the Unified Court was awarded a $199,999 grant supplement, which was also sub-granted to the Fund. The total grant award was $1,195,999. The grant project period is September 15, 1995 through

April 30, 1999. As of June 30, 1998, the grantee had received federal reimbursements totaling $813,911 and had spent $330,588 of state matching funds.

Our audit concentrated on, but was not limited to, the period September 30, 1995 through July 31, 1998. We tested the accuracy and reliability of the grantee’s and

sub-grantee’s accounting system, reviewed the general ledger, and determined if costs charged to the grant were allowable, allocable, and reasonable. For purposes of this review, we used: the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-110, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Other Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and Other Nonprofit Institutions; OMB Circular A-122, Cost Principles for Nonprofit Organizations; and the OJP Financial Guide.

We found that costs claimed under the grant were generally allowable, allocable, reasonable, and in accordance with grant requirements. The drug treatment court was operating and the Unified Court was implementing activities to meet grant objectives. However, we found that the Unified Court violated the following grant conditions.

These items are discussed in the Findings and Recommendations section of the report. Our Scope and Methodology section appears in Appendix I.