Office of Justice Programs
State and Local Domestic Preparedness Grant Programs

Report No. 02-15
March 2002
Office of the Inspector General


APPENDIX V

OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT

    U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs

Office of the Assistant Attorney General
March 27, 2002
  Washington, DC 20531

MEMORANDUM TO: Guy K. Zimmerman
Assistant Inspector General for Audit
 
FROM: Deborah J. Daniels (Original signed)
Assistant Attorney General
 
SUBJECT: Draft Audit Report on the Office of Justice Programs State and Local Domestic Preparedness Support Grant Program

This memorandum responds to the Office of the Inspector General's (OIG's) draft audit report entitled "Office of Justice Programs State and Local Domestic Preparedness Support Grant Program."Each report recommendation is restated in bold below and is followed by our response.

Recommendation 1: We recommend the Assistant Attorney General (AAG), Office of Justice Programs (OJP), continue with current efforts to ensure that states submit applications for funds from prior appropriations, and establish controls to ensure that applications for future funding are submitted as expeditiously as possible. Controls could include application deadlines and follow-up on late submissions.

We agree with this recommendation. To ensure that future applications are submitted in a timely fashion, Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) is: 1) establishing application deadlines for FY 2002 and future-year funding and 2) coordinating the provision of follow-up support to territories and states who demonstrate difficulty in meeting the established application deadlines.

Recommendation 2: We recommend the AAG, OJP, establish controls to ensure grantees use available funds as quickly as possible, such as setting timeframes for spending the funds and holding grantees accountable for the delays.

We agree with the underlying concern. However, some practical difficulties create obstacles for grantees. For example, much of the equipment purchased with ODP funds is highly specialized equipment that is available in only limited supply. Manufacturers often have extensive back orders for this equipment, which delays the expenditure of funds. In addition, local procurement processes and procedures can delay the expenditure of funds.

Recognizing the challenges that jurisdictions face with respect to procurement of specialized response equipment, ODP has established alternative procurement processes through agreements with the Defense Logistics Agency and the Marine Corps Systems Command. These agreements allow ODP grantees to purchase equipment from the agencies' GSA schedules, and may result in cost and time savings for procurement.

ODP uses a variety of methods to ensure that grant funds are expended as quickly as possible and expenditures are in compliance with program guidance, including grant monitoring efforts via telephone, e-mail, and on-site reviews. We will seek to further strengthen our monitoring efforts.

Recommendation 3: We recommend the AAG, OJP, ensure that grantees properly distribute and maintain specialized equipment, and obtain adequate training to operate it.

We agree with this recommendation. ODP has made and will continue to make every effort to provide extensive technical assistance and conduct monitoring visits to assist grantees with these issues.

ODP established the Domestic Preparedness Equipment Technical Assistance Program to provide training to ODP grantees on the use and maintenance of response equipment procured through ODP's grant programs. In FY 2002, ODP will greatly expand this program by making training available to grantees in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. territories.

Recommendation 4: We recommend the AAG, OJP, remedy $870,899 in questioned costs for equipment that was unavailable or unusable.

We agree with this recommendation. ODP has initiated contact with the grantees identified as having equipment that was unavailable or unusable. In all cases, the issues identified by the OIG have already been rectified by the jurisdiction. In fact, more than one-quarter of the equipment identified by the OIG as unavailable for use was actively used during the response to the World Trade Center attacks on September 11, 2001 and is still actively deployed. The attached chart provides the details of our response.

Recommendation 5: We recommend the AAG, OJP, ensure grantees conduct or participate in exercises to maintain their state of readiness.

We agree with this recommendation. A major component of the Three-Year Statewide Domestic Preparedness Strategies is the conduct of tailored exercises in accordance with requirements identified through the Needs Assessment process. In FY 2002, ODP will support these exercise requirements by: 1) providing grant funding for exercise initiatives through an integrated application with ODP's equipment funds; and 2) supplementing this funding through an aggressive State and Local Exercise Support Program that delivers direct exercise assistance, including exercise design, development, and conduct to state and local jurisdictions.

Recommendation 6: We recommend the AAG, OJP, develop performance standards in keeping with the intent of the GPRA for evaluating whether grant support is improving grantees' capability to respond to terrorist incidents.

We agree with this recommendation. The Three-Year Statewide Domestic Preparedness Strategies currently being submitted to ODP by all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. territories provide a baseline for analysis of the impact of ODP programs and services on grantees' capability to respond to terrorist incidents.

ODP is currently developing a process to update the information contained within these strategies on a continuous basis to enable ODP to evaluate the impact of its programs and services over time. ODP expects to complete the development of an evaluation process by December 2002, and anticipates the first round of evaluation results by March 2004. In addition, ODP is implementing a rigorous exercise program designed to enable jurisdictions to test their response capability through practical exercises.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments to the draft report. If you have any questions about this response, please feel free to contact me on (202) 307-5933, or LeToya Bryant, OJP Audit Liaison, on (202) 514-0692.

cc: Curtis Straub, Director
  Office for Domestic Preparedness
   
  Andrew Mitchell, Deputy Director
  Office for Domestic Preparedness
   
  Cynthia J. Schwimer
  Comptroller
   
  LeToya A. Bryant
  OJP Audit Liaison
   
  Vickie L. Sloan
  DOJ Audit Liaison
   
  Executive Secretariat
  Control Number 20020267

Attachment

Equipment Determined to be Unavailable or Unusable

Grant
Recipient
Amount
Questioned
Reason Equipment
Unusable
OJP's Response
Dallas County. TX $299,728 Items not distributed to
locations needing them.
At the time of the OIG's audit, the equipment was in the process of being inventoried. Once the inventory process was completed, the equipment was distributed to the appropriate Hazmat personnel.
Westchester County, NY $238,165 Items not distributed to
locations needing them.
This equipment was used in response to the World Trade Center attack on September 11, 2001 and remains active.
Memphis, TN $137,487 Items not distributed to
locations needing them.
Currently, OJP is corresponding with the grantee to resolve this issue.
MA Emergency Management
Agency, Middlesex
$101,738 Items not distributed to
locations needing them.
Training has been completed and all equipment has been deployed.
Wayne County, MI $55,330 Equipment missing, or staff unable to operate. All equipment is accounted for and staff have been trained on its use.
Clark County, NV $32,572 Equipment missing, or staff unable to operate. All equipment is accounted for and has been distributed.
Hillsborough County, FL $2,674 Equipment not delivered by vendor, or missing. All equipment has been accounted for and bas been deployed
Detroit, MI $1,255 Equipment missing Currently OJP is corresponding with the grantee to resolve this issue.
Tarrant County, TX $1,132 Equipment outdated and discarded. Limited shelf-life is expected for the equipment purchased.
Fairfax County, VA $746 Equipment missing. The grantee has strengthened internal controls and implemented an inventory bar coding system.
Cobb County, GA $72 Equipment missing. OJP is corresponding with the grantee to resolve this issue.