As part of each state visit, the Inspections Division reviewed the state's grant applications and related documentation, project reports, and financial information. We also interviewed state officials and substance abuse treatment providers about the state's use of RSAT grant funds for treating inmates with substance abuse problems. The on-site reviews of the states were conducted from March 1999 through June 1999.
ARIZONA |
Findings |
Recommendations |
Some grant-funded projects were grouped together and treated as a single project for tracking federal funds and providing state matching funds. |
The OJP should determine whether the grantee should account for the projects separately or as one project. |
Some individual project reports and semi-annual progress reports contained inconsistent data, which may affect OJP's ability to monitor projects. The grantee also did not submit an individual project report for grant administration. |
The OJP should ensure that the grantee submits accurate semi-annual progress reports and individual project reports, including an individual project report for grant administration. |
The grantee did not follow OJP's financial guidance for requesting and disbursing federal funds. As a result, subgrantees had excess federal cash on hand. |
The OJP should determine whether the grantee should adhere to the guidance. |
DELAWARE |
Findings |
Recommendations |
Delaware did not provide information to OJP for one RSAT-funded treatment program through the state's grant applications and required reports. |
The OJP should ensure that the grantee submits documentation to reflect the use of RSAT grant funds for the additional treatment program. |
Delaware does not account for each of the four RSAT-funded projects on a total project cost basis. Instead, in Delaware's state accounting system, RSAT-funded treatment programs are grouped together as one overall project and state matching funds are budgeted on the estimated total annual cost of the combined RSAT projects. |
The OJP should determine whether the grantee's accounting method is adequate to track grant funds for RSAT projects and, if matching funds are to be accounted for on a project-by-project basis, that sufficient matching funds have been provided. |
Delaware did not submit individual project reports for grant administration and for each RSAT-funded project. Delaware submitted one report that grouped the projects together. |
The OJP should ensure that Delaware submits an individual project report for grant administration and determine whether the combined report for the RSAT projects is adequate for monitoring RSAT Program implementation. |
Delaware had some questionable costs for grant administration. |
The OJP should determine whether these costs are unallowable and, if so, ensure that the costs are removed from the RSAT Program expenditures. |
ILLINOIS |
Findings |
Recommendations |
Two RSAT-funded projects may not fully meet the guidance and be appropriate uses of grant funds. |
The OJP should determine whether the projects adhere to the grant guidelines. |
Some grant projects were grouped together and treated as a single project for providing state matching funds and reporting project activity. |
The OJP should determine whether the grantee should account for and report the projects separately. |
At the time of our review, the state had submitted many of its financial status reports and semi-annual progress reports to OJP past the established due dates. |
The OJP should ensure that the grantee has improved the timeliness of these reports. |
We did not see individual project reports for each RSAT-funded project. |
The OJP should ensure that it has received the required reports. |
TEXAS |
Findings |
Recommendations |
Several grant projects reported low participant completion rates. |
The OJP should request the grantee to determine whether technical assistance should be provided to subgrantees to improve program implementation. |
For three projects, we found different subaward amounts among the accounting records, award documents, and individual project reports. |
The OJP should ensure that the grantee verifies the accuracy of the subgrantee award amounts in the accounting records and notifies subgrantees of the correct subaward amounts. |
One subgrantee accounted for and reported its projects as one project instead of as separate projects. |
The OJP should determine whether the grantee should account for and report the projects as separate projects or as a single project for project match and individual project report requirements. |
Some costs charged to projects may be unallowable. |
The OJP should ensure that the grantee reviews the questioned costs to determine whether the costs are allowable. |
At the time of our review, the OJP grant files for Texas did not contain all the required semi-annual progress reports and an individual project report for grant administration. The individual project reports on file were not accurate or complete. |
The OJP should ensure that it has received all the required semi-annual progress reports and individual project reports from the grantee, including an individual project report for grant administration, and that the reports are accurate. |
The OJP has been responsive to all the recommendations in the state reports and is assisting the states in their corrective actions. Each state report contains the full text of the responses by the OJP to the inspection findings and recommendations, along with our analysis of those responses. Please reference the individual reports for this information.