Office of Justice Programs
State and Local Domestic Preparedness Grant Programs
Report No. 02-15
Office of the Inspector General
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
We performed our audit in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and, accordingly, included such tests of the records and procedures, as we deemed necessary. Our objectives were to determine whether: (1) the level of support given to grantees was appropriate, (2) funds awarded were used for their intended purpose, (3) Program administrative costs were reasonable, and (4) the Department complied with Government Performance and Results Act requirements as they relate to the Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP).
We reviewed applicable federal laws and regulations, the ODP's directives and reports, and other documents related to preparing grantees to respond to domestic terrorism. We also interviewed the ODP's headquarters officials.
To determine the effectiveness of the ODP's grant program, we reviewed ODP operations through January 2002, and the grant amounts expended through September 2001. We also performed on-site reviews at 13 grantees that were located nationwide and had spent significant portions of their grants. In addition, we reviewed 3 training providers on-site whose funding was significant and whose classes were representative of a variety of training courses. On this basis, we selected the locations listed below for on site reviews:
State and Local Grantees
City of Memphis, Tennessee
Wayne County, Michigan
Massachusetts Emergency Management
Agency (Middlesex), Massachusetts
Clark County, Nevada
Fulton County, Georgia
City of Detroit, Michigan
Hillsborough County Board of Commissioners, Florida
San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, California
Fairfax County, Virginia
Westchester County, New York
Dallas County Judge, Texas
Tarrant County, Texas
Cobb County, Georgia
At each location, we reviewed grant data, determine what contacts grantee officials had with the ODP, reviewed items purchased with grant funds, discussed staff training, and reviewed documentation on the grantees' participation in exercises.
Training Providers Reviewed On-Site
The Center for Domestic Preparedness -- Ft. McClellan, AL. Community Research Associates -- Champagne, IL and Nashville, TN. Texas A & M University's National Emergency Response and Rescue Training Center -- Union Station, TX
At each location reviewed, we: (1) examined accounting records, personnel costs, fringe benefit costs, other direct costs, inventory, and indirect costs; and (2) reviewed the activities outlined in the grant application or planned by the grantee for meeting the grant objectives.
To assess the satisfaction of grantees with the quality of federally funded training received, we issued questionnaires to grantee staff at each of the 9 grantees we reviewed on-site, and sent questionnaires to all of the remaining 147 grantees (see footnote number 3). The questionnaires covered the: