I. ADMINISTRATION AND OVERSIGHT OF REIMBURSEMENTS
- Our audit results revealed that OJP is not adequately overseeing the SWBPI program. Applicants are not required to provide any documentation supporting reimbursement requests. In addition, OJP was not reviewing SWBPI reimbursement applications for accuracy and was not conducting any monitoring activities to determine the eligibility of cases submitted for reimbursement. Additionally, we found that approved reimbursements were not linked to actual costs incurred by the jurisdictions to prosecute federally declined referred criminal cases. Moreover, none of the seven jurisdictions included in our audit maintained any documentation to support costs associated with SWBPI cases submitted for reimbursement. Our analyses determined that $49.78 million in SWBPI reimbursements were in excess of supported annualized costs. Because SWBPI is intended to reimburse states and localities for costs they actually incur, in our judgment OJP needs to do more to ensure that claimed amounts are based on actual costs.
To be eligible for reimbursement under the SWBPI program, each case submitted must meet the following criteria.
The case must be initiated by a federal law enforcement agency.
The case must be declined for federal prosecution and referred to the local jurisdiction for prosecution.
The case must be prosecuted by a state or local jurisdiction.
The case must be disposed of during an eligible reporting period.
However, we found that OJP does not adequately oversee SWBPI reimbursements. Specifically, (1) no supporting documentation is required, (2) the applications are not reviewed for eligibility, and (3) no monitoring of SWBPI recipients occurs.
Supporting Documentation Not Required
Pursuant to the SWBPI guidelines, SWBPI applicants are required to list the total number of cases in each of the three major categories based on the types of services provided: (1) prosecution only, (2) pre-trial detention only, and (3) both prosecution and pre-trial detention. However, OJP does not require SWBPI applicants to provide documentation supporting the number of cases submitted for reimbursement through the electronic application. In our judgment, OJP cannot effectively oversee the SWBPI program without requiring the applicants to provide some documentation in support of reimbursement requests. Further, most of the unallowable and unsupported reimbursements totaling $15.57 million, or 28 percent of the total reimbursements audited, identified in our seven external audits discussed in Finding III, could have been avoided if OJP required applicants to submit supporting documents.28
At a minimum, OJP should require SWBPI recipients to submit a list of cases in support of the reimbursement requests. This list should include sufficient information to verify the eligibility of the cases submitted for reimbursement, including: (1) case number, (2) defendant name, (3) arrest date, (4) disposition date, (5) initiating federal law enforcement agency, and (6) referring federal agency. Additionally, for pre‑trial detention reimbursements the case list should include the defendants booking and release dates. This is consistent with the requirements of other reimbursement programs administered by OJP, such as SCAAP that requires a list of inmate names, identifying information, and the length of detention.
Reimbursement Requests Not Reviewed
Without requiring, at a minimum, a list of cases submitted for reimbursement and information related to case eligibility, OJP is unable to review reimbursement applications for accuracy and to determine the eligibility of cases submitted for reimbursement.
In our judgment, in addition to requiring a list of cases in support of reimbursement requests, OJP should also review reimbursement requests and the supporting case list to determine if the number of cases submitted for reimbursement is accurate and that all cases submitted are eligible for reimbursement. Again, this is consistent with the requirements of other reimbursement programs administered by OJP, such as SCAAP for which the reimbursement request is verified by DHS ICE to determine if the inmates are eligible for reimbursement in accordance with the SCAAP criteria.
Monitoring Activities Not Conducted
Although SWBPI recipients are required to maintain documentation supporting the reimbursement requests for 3 years from the date the application was approved, we found that OJP did not conduct any monitoring activities of SWBPI reimbursement recipients. For its traditional grant programs, OJP is required to devote resources to on-site monitoring reviews to verify that sufficient documentation is available to support grant-related activities and that progress is being made towards performance requirements. OJP is also required to conduct remote reviews of grantee information to verify the accuracy and quality of information submitted by grantees regarding financial and program activities. Although SWBPI is not a grant program, in our judgment the same concerns that the OIG has previously reported regarding OJP’s management and oversight of grant programs applies to the SWBPI program.
In our judgment, OJP should conduct monitoring activities of SWBPI recipients to: (1) ensure compliance with the programmatic, administrative, and fiscal requirements of relevant statutes, regulations, policies, and guidelines; (2) provide guidance on OJP policies and procedures, program requirements, general federal regulations, and basic programmatic, administrative, and reporting requirements; and (3) identify and resolve problems that may impede the effective administration of the program.
OJP’s policy to not require supporting documentation for reimbursement applications and its failure to perform monitoring activities of SWBPI participants place SWBPI funding at a high risk of misuse. We believe such conditions more easily allow for unsupported and unallowable requests for reimbursements.
External Audits Identified Unallowable and Unsupported Reimbursements
We conducted a series of seven audits covering SWBPI reimbursements totaling $55.11 million awarded from FYs 2002 through 2006. The seven SWBPI recipients audited were: (1) New Mexico DPS; (2) Yuma County; (3) Maricopa County; (4) El Paso County; (5) San Diego (6) Brooks County; and (7) San Francisco. These audits revealed OJP does not adequately oversee the SWBPI program. W e found unallowable and unsupported reimbursements totaling $15.57 million, which equates to 28 percent of the total reimbursements audited. Additionally, we identified $27,500 in funds to be put to better use.29 Specifically, we identified:
unsupported reimbursements totaling $5.41 million for which the number of cases submitted on the electronic applications exceeded the number of cases on the detailed list provided by the recipient in our audit;
2,133 cases that were not eligible for reimbursement under the SWBPI guidelines received reimbursements, resulting in $10.18 million in questioned costs and funds to be put to better use;
two jurisdictions – Yuma County and San Francisco – did not maintain a list of cases submitted for reimbursement, and San Francisco’s SWBPI submissions were based on estimates, not specific SWBPI eligible cases actually prosecuted.30
The results of our audits are discussed in detail in Finding III. However, the significant dollar‑related findings we identified further support our conclusion that OJP does not adequately oversee the SWBPI program.
SWBPI Reimbursement Not Linked to Actual Costs
We found that SWBPI reimbursement categories and corresponding reimbursement amounts were not based on actual costs. On each quarterly application the jurisdiction’s CEO or designee must certify that the total application amount, when combined with other federal funding, does not exceed 100 percent of the jurisdiction’s annualized costs for SWBPI prosecution and pre-trial detention services. Further, the CEO or designee must certify that the SWBPI claim has been adjusted to account for additional prosecution and pre‑trial detention funding received through other federal programs.
We interviewed OJP officials to determine the basis for the reimbursement categories and corresponding reimbursement amounts. However, OJP could not provide documentation to demonstrate what actions were taken in creating the reimbursement categories and corresponding reimbursement amounts. Further, OJP was not able to provide documentation to support the basis for its uniform payment per case schedule. We also found that the OJP personnel responsible for administering the SWBPI program were not aware of the basis used in determining the reimbursement categories and amounts.
We were able to determine that during FYs 2000 and 2001 when the SWBPI program was administered by EOUSA, each participant was required to analyze actual costs in various categories and develop a unique, jurisdiction-specific cost per case as the basis for the reimbursement agreement. We consider this a best practice to ensure that reimbursements most accurately reflect actual costs.
However, according to correspondence provided to us by OJP from a former SWBPI official, when the administration of the SWBPI program was transferred to OJP, OJP planned to formulate the uniform cost‑per-case reimbursement schedule. The reimbursement schedule was to be based upon information and feedback from U.S. Attorneys, and state and local criminal justice professionals.
Based on OJP’s inability to provide any support or justification for its uniform payment per case schedule, we were concerned that the reimbursement categories and corresponding amounts may not accurately reflect the actual costs to prosecute and detain SWBPI defendants. This is particularly important because, as stated previously, the FY 2002 Appropriations Act and all subsequent appropriations identify SWBPI as a reimbursement program.
We conducted limited testing at the seven jurisdictions included in our audit to determine the correlation between reimbursement categories and actual costs for prosecution and detention. We found that reimbursements are not based on actual costs incurred by the jurisdictions to prosecute federally declined-referred criminal cases. Specifically, we found that:
None of the seven jurisdictions included in our audit maintained any documentation to support prosecution and pre-trial detention costs for SWBPI cases. However, the jurisdictions were able to provide us with sufficient information to calculate pre-trial detention costs;
Reimbursements for cases submitted under the “both” prosecution and pre-trial detention category are based on the number of days to prosecute the case, regardless of the length of time the defendant was detained;
Prosecution services are reimbursed at the same amounts as pre-trial detention services, even though there is no evidence that these amounts accurately reflect the actual average prosecution and detention costs for each Southwest Border jurisdiction; and
Reimbursements are based on the number of days the case was open rather than the time and effort spent on prosecuting the case.
As a result of not linking reimbursement rates to actual costs, jurisdictions may receive reimbursements in excess of their actual costs. In our judgment, this is inconsistent with the stated statutory goal of reimbursing jurisdictions for money actually expended. Moreover, as of the 4th quarter of FY 2006, SWBPI applicants only received 44 percent of the maximum reimbursement amount because reimbursement requests exceeded available funding, as shown in Table 3.
TABLE 3.
PRO-RATA SWBPI REIMBURSEMENTS
| QUARTER ENDED | PRO-RATA REIMBURSEMENTS |
|---|---|
| December 31, 2004 | 49.29 % |
| March 31, 2005 | 44.08 % |
| June 30, 2005 | 47.40 % |
| September 30, 2005 | 50.16 % |
| December 31, 2005 | 53.18 % |
| March 31, 2006 | 47.61 % |
| June 30, 2006 | 43.09 % |
| September 30, 2006 | 44.05 % |
In our opinion, if OJP ensured that only eligible cases were reimbursed and reimbursements were linked to the actual costs to prosecute and detain SWBPI defendants, additional funds would be available to more fully reimburse actual costs for eligible cases. These findings are discussed in detail in the following sections.
Reimbursements in Excess of Supported Costs
We conducted testing to calculate the actual annualized prosecution and pre-trial detention costs as compared to total SWBPI reimbursements to determine whether or not the jurisdictions received SWBPI reimbursements in excess of their actual costs. Based on our analysis we found that SWBPI recipients received reimbursements totaling $49.78 million in excess of supported annualized costs, as shown in Table 4.31
TABLE 4.
SWBPI REIMBURSEMENTS IN EXCESS OF SUPPORTED COSTS
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)32
| SITE | FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | TOTAL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New Mexico DPS | $ 3.62 | $ 4.87 | $4.03 | $4.41 | $2.47 | $19.41 |
| Brooks County | 1.69 | 1.87 | .61 | 2.41 | .92 | 7.49 |
| San Diego | 3.41 | 2.19 | 2.02 | .38 | (.20) | 7.80 |
| El Paso County | 1.84 | 2.07 | .68 | .87 | .83 | 6.29 |
| San Francisco33 | - | - | .04 | 1.71 | 3.67 | 5.41 |
| Yuma County | .50 | .65 | .52 | .26 | .41 | 2.34 |
| Maricopa County | .42 | .40 | .37 | (.05) | (.11) | 1.02 |
| TOTAL | $11.48 | $12.03 | $8.27 | $9.99 | $8.00 | $49. 78 |
The SWBPI reimbursements of $49.78 million in excess of supported costs was predominately due to the fact that none of the jurisdictions included in our audit tracked or maintained data supporting the costs associated with prosecuting SWBPI cases. However, each jurisdiction was able to provide documentation to support their actual cost per day for pre‑trial detention services. As a result, we were able to calculate the actual annualized pre-trial detention costs for SWBPI cases. As noted above, SWBPI is a reimbursement program and each SWBPI applicant certifies that total federal reimbursements do not exceed 100 percent of its actual prosecution and pre‑trial detention costs for SWBPI cases.
In our opinion, OJP should obtain sufficient cost data from each SWBPI recipient to ensure that reimbursements are linked to actual costs associated with SWBPI cases. We do not believe it is necessary for SWBPI recipients to create elaborate cost accounting systems to determine the actual costs for each case. However, each recipient should, at a minimum, track and maintain sufficient data on the costs associated with SWBPI cases to support the certification that total federal funds received do not exceed 100 percent of the annualized costs for its SWBPI cases. This is consistent with the requirements of other reimbursement programs administered by OJP such as SCAAP, which requires that recipients provide actual cost information to determine the per day reimbursement rate.
Specifically, SCAAP participants are required to submit actual cost data in order to participate in the reimbursement program. Each SCAAP participant receives reimbursements based on a per diem cost rate specific to each jurisdiction. The total inmate days and total correctional officer salary costs are utilized in determining the per diem cost used to calculate inmate reimbursements for SCAAP. The total inmate days are the cumulative number of consecutive detention days attributable to inmates housed in the jurisdiction’s facilities during the reporting period. It includes all inmates regardless of their status, citizenship, disposition, or length of stay. Correctional officers include employees, officers, and contractual staff whose primary responsibility is the control, custody, or supervision of persons detained and incarcerated and their salary costs reflect the total salaries and wages paid to full and part-time correctional officers. The per diem cost is derived by dividing the jurisdiction’s total inmate days into the total correctional officer salary costs. A hypothetical example is shown in Table 5.
TABLE 5.
SAMPLE CALCULATION OF SCAAP RATES
| DAILY DETENTION RATE | |
|---|---|
| Total Salary Costs | $50,000,000 |
| Divided By Total Inmate Days |
2,000,000 |
| Equals Per Diem | $25.00 |
| Total Inmate Days Eligible for Reimbursement | 200,000 |
| TOTAL REIMBURSEMENT | $ 5,000,000 |
Analysis of SWBPI Reimbursements for the “Both” Category
Pursuant to SWBPI guidelines, reimbursements for cases submitted under the “both” prosecution and pre-trial detention category are based on the number of days to prosecute the case, regardless of the length of time the defendant was detained.
Based on our audits of SWBPI recipients, we determined that in many cases involving both prosecution and pre-trial detention services the defendant was only detained for a few days. If the pre-trial detention reimbursements for these cases were calculated separately, SWBPI jurisdictions would only have received up to $1,250 for these cases. However, based on the guidelines in place during the period covered by our audit, if the length of disposition for prosecution was in the over 90 day category, the recipient received up to $10,000 for the case ($5,000 for prosecution and $5,000 for pre-trial detention) even though the pre-trial detention services were for less than 15 days.
For five of the seven sites included in our audit, we analyzed all “both” cases submitted in the over-90 day category to determine the number of cases for which the pre-trial detention reimbursement would have been submitted in a different reimbursement category based on the length of detention.34 We found that on average for 69 percent of the over 90 day “both” cases, pre‑trial detention would have been reimbursed in a lesser category, as shown in Table 6.
TABLE 6.
ANALYSIS OF PRE-TRIAL DETENTION FOR 91+ DAY BOTH CASES
| NO. OF 91+ DAY BOTH CASES | PERCENT OF CASES ACTUAL DETENTION IN 1-15 DAY CATEGORY | PERCENT OF CASES ACTUAL DETENTION IN 16-30 DAY CATEGORY | PERCENT OF CASES ACTUAL DETENTION IN 31-90 DAY CATEGORY | TOTAL PERCENT OF CASES ACTUAL DETENTION LESS THAN 91+ DAYS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| El Paso Co. | 837 | 71.68 % | 7.65 % | 4.42 % | 83.75 % |
| Brooks Co. | 664 | 65.36 % | 1.51 % | 0.15 % | 67.02 % |
| San Diego Co. | 511 | 43.84 % | 6.64 % | 9.98 % | 60.46 % |
| Yuma Co. | 157 | 35.03 % | 14.01 % | 5.10 % | 54.14 % |
| Maricopa Co. | 252 | 26.59 % | 5.95 % | 17.86 % | 50.40 % |
| WEIGHTED AVERAGE | N/A | 57.00 % | 5.99 % | 5.87 % | 68.85 % |
In summary, based on the number of days the defendant was detained in the five sites included in our analysis, the pre‑trial detention reimbursements for 50 to 84-percent of the “both” cases submitted in the over 90 day reimbursement category, would have been submitted in a lower reimbursement category if the reimbursements were calculated separately. Therefore, using the “both” category does not accurately reflect pre-trial detention costs because reimbursements are based on the number of days to prosecute the case, regardless of the length of time the defendant was detained. As a result, these cases received excess reimbursements for pre‑trial detention. In our judgment, OJP should eliminate the “both” category and reimburse prosecution and pre-trial detention costs separately.
In addition to the fact that the prosecution timeline takes precedence in determining the reimbursement category for the “both” cases, there is no evidence that prosecution and pre-trial detention costs are similar and should be reimbursed at the same rate.
Analysis of Reimbursements for Pre-Trial Detention
We found that pre-trial detention reimbursements do not accurately reflect the average daily detention costs for each Southwest Border jurisdiction. We obtained the daily pre-trial detention costs for six jurisdictions included in our audit. From this data we determined that there was a wide range in the daily costs to detain defendants among the jurisdictions included in our audit, as shown in Table 7.35
TABLE 7.
FY 2006 SWBPI DAILY DETENTION RATES
| JURISDICTION | DAILY DETENTION RATE |
|---|---|
| San Diego | $110.69 |
| San Francisco | 88.25 |
| Yuma County | 70.24 |
| El Paso County | 57.98 |
| Maricopa County | 56.23 |
| Brooks County | 46.00 |
| Average | $ 71.57 |
The FY 2006 daily detention rates among the six jurisdictions ranged from $110.69 per day in San Diego to $46.00 per day in Brooks County, a difference of $64.69. As a result, it is clear that using the same detention reimbursement rates for all SWBPI jurisdictions does not accurately reflect actual costs to detain the defendants.
In addition to the fact that there is a wide range in the daily detention rates among the jurisdictions, we found that in general the average detention rate based on the SWBPI reimbursement categories exceeded the highest detention rate of the six jurisdictions included in our audit. For example, the average daily detention reimbursement rate among the six jurisdictions included in our audit was $71.57. However, the average daily SWBPI detention reimbursements for the 1 to 15, 16 to 30, and 31 to 90 day reimbursement categories were $206.98, $112.79, and $67.97 respectively. Only in cases where the defendant was detained for more than 52 days did the SWBPI daily detention rate of $72.12 more closely resemble the actual average daily cost of $71.57 to detain the defendants. As noted previously, the majority of pre-trial detention services provided for SWBPI defendants fell into the 1 to 15 day reimbursement category. Therefore, SWBPI pre‑trial detention amounts generally exceeded the actual pre-trial detention costs incurred by the state and local jurisdictions.
In our judgment, the pre-trial detention reimbursement amounts should be adjusted by OJP to more accurately reflect actual costs. This would provide additional funding for prosecution services and provide a more equitable distribution of SWBPI funding. Additionally, we believe pre-trial detention reimbursements should be based on the actual number of days the defendant was detained rather than on the broad range of days included in the reimbursement categories. This is consistent with the requirements of other reimbursement programs administered by OJP, such as its SCAAP for which the reimbursement amounts are based on actual costs and the specific number of days the inmate was incarcerated.
Reimbursements Based On Days Rather Than Time and Effort
Finally, we found that the reimbursements are based on the number of days the case was open rather than the time and effort spent on prosecuting the case and the actual number of days that the defendant was detained. SWBPI reimbursements are currently based on the length of disposition: (1) 1 to 15 days, (2) 16 to 30 days, (3) 31 to 90 days, and (4) over 90 days.
According to the SWBPI guidelines, case disposition refers to the time between a suspect’s arrest and the resolution (e.g., dismissal, plea, conviction) of the criminal charges through a county or state judicial or prosecutorial process. However, in our judgment using the number of days the SWBPI case is open does not accurately reflect the actual cost to prosecute the case. We based this conclusion on the fact that each SWBPI case varies in complexity. For example, in a simple case related to the possession of a controlled substance by a single defendant, the prosecutor’s time and effort may be very little as compared to a complex case with multiple defendants. However, the trial date for both cases may be set for more than 90 days after the defendant was arrested. Therefore, both cases would be reimbursed at the over 90-day rate even though the actual costs associated with prosecuting the cases were significantly less. Additionally, prosecution services are reimbursed at the same rate for each jurisdiction even though there is no evidence that these amounts accurately reflect the jurisdiction’s prosecution costs. In our judgment, the prosecution reimbursement amounts should be adjusted by OJP to more accurately reflect the actual costs involved in prosecuting the case.
While the number of days the defendant is detained is an accurate measure of the pre-trial detention costs for SWBPI cases, in our judgment the current SWBPI reimbursement categories do not accurately reflect the pre-trial detention costs. We based this conclusion on the fact that the reimbursements are calculated on a broad range of days rather than the actual number of days the defendant was detained. In many instances using this broad range of days rather than the actual number of days can result in reimbursements for pre-trial detention services far in excess of actual costs. Based on the SWBPI reimbursement amounts, depending on the number of days the defendant was actually detained, for pre‑trial detention only cases that fall into the 1 to 15 day reimbursement category, the daily SWBPI pre‑trial detention reimbursements range from $625 per day to $83 per day; the daily pre-trial detention reimbursements for the 16 to 30 day category range from $156.25 per day to $83 per day; and the daily pre-trial detention reimbursements for the 31 to 90 day reimbursement category range from $ 121 per day to $42. Tables 8 and 9 detail the average SWBPI pre-trial detention reimbursements based on the actual number of days the defendant was detained.
TABLE 8.
CALCULATION OF EFFECTIVE DAILY DETENTION RATES
(1 TO 15 DAY AND 16 TO 30 DAY CATEGORIES)
| NUMBER OF DAYS | DAILY RATE | NUMBER OF DAYS | DAILY RATE |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | N/A36 | 16 | $156.25 |
| 2 | $625.00 | 17 | 147.06 |
| 3 | 416.67 | 18 | 138.89 |
| 4 | 312.50 | 19 | 131.58 |
| 5 | 250.00 | 20 | 125.00 |
| 6 | 208.33 | 21 | 119.05 |
| 7 | 178.57 | 22 | 113.64 |
| 8 | 156.25 | 23 | 108.70 |
| 9 | 138.89 | 24 | 104.17 |
| 10 | 125.00 | 25 | 100.00 |
| 11 | 113.64 | 26 | 96.15 |
| 12 | 104.17 | 27 | 92.59 |
| 13 | 96.15 | 28 | 89.29 |
| 14 | 89.29 | 29 | 86.21 |
| 15 | 83.33 | 30 | 83.33 |
| Average | $206.98 | Average | $112.79 |
TABLE 9.
CALCULATION OF EFFECTIVE DAILY DETENTION RATES
(31 TO 90 DAY CATEGORY)
| NUMBER OF DAYS | DAILY RATE | NUMBER OF DAYS | DAILY RATE | NUMBER OF DAYS | DAILY RATE | NUMBER OF DAYS | DAILY RATE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 31 | $120.97 | 46 | $81.52 | 61 | $61.48 | 76 | $49.34 |
| 32 | 117.19 | 47 | 79.79 | 62 | 60.48 | 77 | 48.70 |
| 33 | 113.64 | 48 | 78.13 | 63 | 59.52 | 78 | 48.08 |
| 34 | 110.29 | 49 | 76.53 | 64 | 58.59 | 79 | 47.47 |
| 35 | 107.14 | 50 | 75.00 | 65 | 57.69 | 80 | 46.88 |
| 36 | 104.17 | 51 | 73.53 | 66 | 56.82 | 81 | 46.30 |
| 37 | 101.35 | 52 | 72.12 | 67 | 55.97 | 82 | 45.73 |
| 38 | 98.68 | 53 | 70.75 | 68 | 55.15 | 83 | 45.18 |
| 39 | 96.15 | 54 | 69.44 | 69 | 54.35 | 84 | 44.64 |
| 40 | 93.75 | 55 | 68.18 | 70 | 53.57 | 85 | 44.12 |
| 41 | 91.46 | 56 | 66.96 | 71 | 52.82 | 86 | 43.60 |
| 42 | 89.29 | 57 | 65.79 | 72 | 52.08 | 87 | 43.10 |
| 43 | 87.21 | 58 | 64.66 | 73 | 51.37 | 88 | 42.61 |
| 44 | 85.23 | 59 | 63.56 | 74 | 50.68 | 89 | 42.13 |
| 45 | 83.33 | 60 | 62.50 | 75 | 50.00 | 90 | 41.67 |
| Average | $67.97 | ||||||
As stated previously, the FY 2006 daily detention rates among the six jurisdictions included in our audit ranged from $110.69 per day in San Diego to $46.00 per day in Brooks County. Additionally, the average daily detention rate for the six jurisdictions was $71.57 per day. Therefore, using the broad range of days rather than the actual number of days for SWBPI pre-trial detention reimbursements generally results in reimbursement far in excess of actual costs. This is due to the majority of pre-trial detention services provided for SWBPI defendants who fall into the 1 to 15 day reimbursement category. This issue is further compounded by the fact that reimbursements for SWBPI cases submitted in the “both” category are based on the number of days it took to prosecute the case. A jurisdiction could receive up to $5,000 for pre-trial detention services ($2,500 per day) even when a defendant was only held overnight and released the next day. Therefore, basing reimbursements on a broad range of days rather than the actual number of days the defendant was detained does not accurately reflect pre-trial detention costs.
We found the following conditions related to OJP’s administration and oversight of its SWBPI program:
Applicants are not required to provide any documentation supporting reimbursement requests.
OJP does not review the applications for accuracy or to determine the eligibility of cases submitted for reimbursement.
OJP does not conduct any monitoring activities of SWBPI recipients.
Based on our review of seven SWBPI recipients, we found unallowable and unsupported reimbursements totaling $15.57 million, which equates to 28 percent of the total reimbursements audited and funds to be put to better use of $27,500. The results of our audits are discussed in detail in Finding III. However, the significant dollar‑related findings we identified further support our conclusion that OJP does not adequately oversee the SWBPI program.
Reimbursements are not based on actual costs incurred by the jurisdictions to prosecute federally declined‑referred criminal cases.
-
The SWBPI guidelines require the recipients to certify that total federal reimbursements do not exceed 100 percent of actual prosecution and pre-trial detention costs for SWBPI cases. However, none of the seven jurisdictions included in our audit maintained any documentation to support the costs associated with SWBPI cases submitted for reimbursement, although the jurisdictions were able to provide us with data related to the pre-trial detention costs. As a result, based on our analysis of the seven jurisdictions included in our audit, we found that SWBPI recipients received reimbursements totaling $49.78 million in excess of the supported annualized costs.
Reimbursements for cases submitted under the “both” prosecution and pre-trial detention category are based on the number of days to prosecute the case, regardless of the length of time the defendant was detained. We found that on average for 69 percent of the over 90 day “both” cases, the pre-trial detention would have been reimbursed at a lesser amount based on the number of days the defendant was detained.
Prosecution services are reimbursed at the same amounts as pre-trial detention services, even though there is no evidence that prosecution and pre‑trial detention costs are similar and should be reimbursed at the same rate. Additionally, there is no evidence that these amounts accurately reflect the actual average prosecution and detention costs for each Southwest Border jurisdiction.
Based on our analysis of the daily pre‑trial detention rates, we determined that daily detention rates among the six jurisdictions ranged from $110.69 per day in San Diego to $46.00 per day in Brooks County, a difference of $64.69 per day. We also found that the average daily detention reimbursement rate among the six jurisdictions included in our audit was $71.57. However, the average daily SWBPI detention reimbursements for the 1 to 15, 16 to 30, and 31 to 90 day reimbursement categories are $206.98, $112.79, and $67.97, respectively.
The reimbursements are based on the number of days the case was open rather than the time and effort spent on prosecuting the case, which in our judgment does not accurately reflect the actual cost to prosecute the case.
Using the number of days the defendant is detained is an accurate measure of the pre-trial detention costs for SWBPI cases. However, because SWBPI reimbursements are based on a broad range of days rather than the actual number of days, generally reimbursements for pre-trial detention services far exceeds actual costs. For example, for pre‑trial detention only cases that fall into the 1 to 15 day reimbursement category, the daily pre-trial detention reimbursements range from $625 per day to $83 per day; the daily pre-trial detention reimbursements for the 16 to 30 day category range from $156 per day to $83 per day; and the daily pre-trial detention reimbursements for the 31 to 90 day category range from $ 121 per day to $42 per day depending on the number of days the defendant was actually detained. The average daily detention rate for the six jurisdictions was only $71.57 per day. Therefore, using the broad range of days rather than the actual number of days for SWBPI pre-trial detention reimbursements can result in reimbursement far in excess of actual costs.
All of these conditions have resulted in jurisdictions receiving reimbursement for unsupported and ineligible cases, and thus jurisdictions may be receiving reimbursements in excess of their actual costs. The importance of the issues is also reinforced by the fact that, as of the 4th quarter of FY 2006, SWBPI applicants only received 44 percent of the maximum reimbursement amount because reimbursement requests exceeded available SWBPI funding. Our findings demonstrate that OJP is not adequately administering and overseeing its SWBPI program.
We recommend OJP:
Require SWBPI recipients to submit a list of cases in support of the reimbursement requests. This list should include sufficient information to verify the eligibility of the cases submitted for reimbursement, including: (1) case number, (2) defendant name, (3) arrest date, (4) disposition date, (5) initiating federal law enforcement agency, and (6) referring federal agency. Additionally, for pre‑trial detention reimbursements the case list should include the defendant booking date and release date.
Review reimbursement requests and the supporting case list to ensure that the number of cases submitted for reimbursement is accurate and that all cases submitted are eligible for reimbursement.
Conduct monitoring activities of SWBPI recipients to: (1) ensure compliance with the programmatic, administrative, and fiscal requirements of relevant statutes, regulations, policies, and guidelines; (2) provide guidance on OJP policies and procedures, program requirements, general federal regulations, and basic programmatic, administrative, and reporting requirements; and (3) identify and resolve problems that may impede the effective administration of the program.
Require that SWBPI recipients provide and maintain data on the actual prosecution and detention costs for SWBPI cases.
Adjust SWBPI reimbursement amounts to more accurately reflect actual costs based on the cost data provided by SWBPI participants.
Eliminate the “both” category and require SWBPI jurisdictions to submit prosecution and pre-trial detention reimbursement requests separately.
Ensure that reimbursements for prosecution services are based on the time and effort spent on prosecuting the case rather than the number of days the case was open.
Ensure that pre-trial detention reimbursements are based on the actual number of days the defendant was detained.
Ensure that pre-trial detention reimbursements are based on the jurisdiction’s actual daily detention rate.
II. ADDITIONAL FEDERAL PROGRAMS WITH OVERLAPPING OBJECTIVES
- Our audit found that OJP has not taken any action to identify potential duplicate funding between the SWBPI program and other federal prosecution and pre-trial detention reimbursement or grant programs. Additionally, we found that with the exception of El Paso County, Texas, none of the jurisdictions included in our audit, who received additional federal funding for prosecution and pre-trial detention services, took any steps to ensure that SWBPI reimbursements, when combined with additional federal funding, did not exceed the total cost associated with these cases. Further, none of the seven jurisdictions included in our audit maintained any documentation to support the costs associated with SWBPI cases submitted for reimbursement.
At the time SWBPI reimbursement applications are submitted, the jurisdiction’s CEO or designee must certify that the “... application does not contain payment claims for cases already fully reimbursed by federal funds, or when combined with other federal reimbursement, grant, or payment funds, does not make payment claims in excess of 100 percent of the cost of prosecuting and or detaining case defendants in the reporting period.” Additionally, on the SWBPI application, the jurisdiction’s CEO or designee is required to certify that they “... have made the necessary application adjustments to account for my jurisdiction’s receiving reimbursement, subsidy, or the functional equivalent thereof, through other federal grant programs, or other reimbursable agreements with a federal agency, including federal grant programs that indirectly award funds to the county or state government for prosecution or detention services.”
These guidelines, coupled with a concern raised by the ONDCP regarding the possibility of SWBPI recipients also receiving reimbursement for prosecution services under the HIDTA program, led us to look closely into the possibility of duplicate funding between the SWBPI program and other federal prosecution and detention reimbursement programs.
Additional Federal Prosecution and Detention Funding
In addition to the SWBPI program, we identified three other major federal programs that provide funding to state and local jurisdictions for prosecution and detention services. These programs are the ONDCP HIDTA Drug Prosecution Initiatives, the OJP’s Byrne Grant Program, and the DHS ICE SCAAP. The potential exists for state and local governments to receive funding from these programs and the SWBPI program and duplicate federal funding assistance on individual cases.
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Drug Prosecution Initiatives
ONDCP, a component of the Executive Office of the President, was established by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. The principal purpose of ONDCP is to establish policies, priorities, and objectives for the nation's drug control program. The goals of the drug control program are to reduce illicit drug use, manufacturing and trafficking, drug-related crime and violence, and drug-related health consequences. To achieve these goals, the Director of ONDCP is charged with producing the National Drug Control Strategy, which directs anti-drug efforts and establishes a program, a budget, and guidelines for cooperation among federal, state, and local entities.
ONDCP also administers the HIDTA program, which provides assistance to federal, state, and local law enforcement entities operating in areas most adversely affected by drug trafficking.37 A central feature of the HIDTA program is the discretion granted to HIDTA executive boards to design and carry out activities that reflect the specific drug trafficking threats found in each HIDTA region. In FY 2006, HIDTA funding totaled $224.7 million, of which $7 million was budgeted for locally designed strategies for prosecution. The HIDTA Prosecution Initiatives are an optional initiative for local HIDTAs and their executive boards, which determine if an initiative is needed in their area. The HIDTA Prosecution Initiatives funding covers salaries and some fringe benefits for prosecutors to work on drug related HIDTA cases. The possibility for duplicate funding occurs when a state or local organization submits a SWBPI reimbursement application for a HIDTA drug case that was prosecuted by a HIDTA-funded prosecutor.
Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program
The Byrne Grant Program is a partnership among federal, state, and local governments to create safer communities. Byrne grants afford agencies the flexibility to prioritize and place its federal grant funds where they are needed most. In FY 2006, Byrne grant funding totaled $292 million.
Byrne grant funds can be used for state and local initiatives, technical assistance, training, personnel, equipment, supplies, contractual support, and information systems for criminal justice for any one or more of the following purpose areas: (1) law enforcement programs, (2) prosecution and court programs, (3) prevention and education programs, (4) corrections and community corrections programs, (5) drug treatment programs, and (6) planning, evaluation, and technology improvement programs. The possibility for duplicate funding occurs when jurisdictions receive both SWBPI prosecution reimbursements and Byrne grant prosecution funds for the same case.
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
BJA administers SCAAP in conjunction with the DHS ICE. SCAAP provides federal payments to states and localities that incur correctional officer salary costs for incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens who have at least one felony or two misdemeanor convictions for violations of state or local laws, and who are incarcerated for at least four consecutive days during the reporting period. Due to the complex nature of immigration status, DHS ICE makes the final decision on the status of submitted inmate records to determine if the inmate is an undocumented criminal alien.
To apply for SCAAP funding, the jurisdictions must submit inmate data files – including identifiable information – on the inmate that are used to determine SCAAP eligibility. The per diem cost is derived by dividing the jurisdiction’s total inmate days into the total correctional officer salary costs.
As stated in Finding I, we found that the seven entities tested during our audit did not supply OJP with documentation supporting their SWBPI reimbursement requests and did not maintain records tracking the actual costs associated with SWBPI cases. Further, the CEOs for each SWBPI recipient certified that total federal funds for SWBPI cases did not exceed 100 percent of the jurisdiction’s annualized costs. However, none of the seven jurisdictions included in our audit maintained any documentation to support costs associated with SWBPI cases submitted for reimbursement. Thus none of the SWBPI recipients ensured that reimbursements did not exceed costs. As a result, the jurisdictions included in our audit made unsupported certifications in each quarterly SWBPI reimbursement application that total federal funds did not exceed 100 percent of the jurisdiction’s annualized costs as detailed in the following sections.
Analysis of Additional Federal Prosecution Funding
We determined that six of the seven jurisdictions included in our audit received HIDTA, Byrne, and other federal prosecution funds totaling $27 million, as shown in Table 10.38
TABLE 10.
PROSECUTION GRANTS RECEIVED BY SWBPI RECIPIENTS
| HIDTA | BYRNE | OTHER | TOTAL | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| El Paso County | $ 2,281,578 | - | $ 2,067,520 | $4,349,098 |
| New Mexico DPS | 2,639,254 | - | $6,074,948 | 8,714,202 |
| Maricopa County | 1,638,836 | 4,699,239 | - | 6,338,075 |
| Yuma County | 1,637,388 | 1,775,948 | - | 3,413,336 |
| San Diego | 2,394,462 | - | 126,856 | 2,521,318 |
| San Francisco | - | 1,862,802 | - | 1,862,802 |
| Brooks County | - | - | - | - |
| TOTAL | $10,591,518 | $8,337,989 | $8,269,324 | $27,198, 831 |
Between FYs 2002 and 2006, El Paso County received federal prosecution funding totaling $4.35 million. Despite the fact that El Paso County certified on its SWBPI applications that SWBPI reimbursements when combined with other federal funding did not exceed 100 percent of their costs, El Paso County could not provide any data on actual costs to prosecute the SWBPI cases. However, El Paso County did deduct $1.51 million from its eligible SWBPI reimbursements to account for a portion of the additional federal prosecution funding received by the County. Although El Paso County did not track its costs to prosecute SWBPI cases, according to El Paso County officials the $1.51 million was deducted from their SWBPI reimbursement requests in an attempt to ensure that federal funding did not exceed 100 percent of the costs to prosecute SWBPI case.
Between FY 2002 and 2006, Brooks County did not receive any additional federal prosecution funding. However, between FY 2002 and 2006, New Mexico DPS, Maricopa County, Yuma County, San Diego, and San Francisco received federal prosecution funds totaling $8.71 million, $6.34 million, $3.41 million, $2.52 million, and $1.86 million respectively. Despite the fact that each of these jurisdictions certified in its SWBPI applications that SWBPI reimbursements when combined with other federal funding did not exceed 100 percent of their costs, none of the jurisdictions could provide any data on actual costs to prosecute SWBPI cases. Additionally, we found that none of these jurisdictions took any steps to ensure that SWBPI reimbursements received for these cases did not duplicate funding received under other federal prosecution grants. Therefore, the possibility exists that these jurisdictions received duplicate funding.
As stated previously, on the SWBPI application the jurisdictions’ CEOs or designees are required to certify that they have made the necessary adjustments to its reimbursement request to account for any other federal funding for prosecution or detention services. However, despite the fact that six of the seven jurisdictions included in our audit received additional federal funds for prosecution services, we found that with the exception of El Paso County none of the jurisdictions have taken any action to ensure they were not receiving duplicate federal prosecution funds. In our judgment, the seven jurisdictions included in our audit made unsupported certifications in each quarterly SWBPI reimbursement application that the total federal funds provided to the jurisdiction for SWBPI cases during the reporting period did not exceed 100 percent of the jurisdiction’s annualized costs for prosecution services.
As stated previously, OJP should obtain sufficient cost data from each SWBPI recipient to ensure that reimbursements are linked to actual costs associated with SWBPI cases. Each recipient should track and maintain sufficient data on the costs associated with SWBPI cases to support its certification that total federal funds received do not exceed 100 percent of the annualized costs for its SWBPI cases. This is consistent with the requirements of other reimbursement programs administered by OJP, such as SCAAP, which requires that recipients provide actual cost information to determine the per day reimbursement rate.
Analysis of Additional Federal Detention Funding
Since the SWBPI program also includes reimbursements for pre-trial detention services, we looked at the possibility of duplicate funding with SCAAP. Five of the seven jurisdictions included in our audit received SCAAP funds totaling $95,559 for pre-trial detention services provided in SWBPI cases submitted for reimbursement.39 Specifically,
San Diego received pre-trial detention SCAAP funding totaling $49,232 for 433 cases that were also submitted for pre-trial detention reimbursement under the SWBPI program. In addition, there are 82 SWBPI cases for which SCAAP reimbursement has been requested but not yet received.
El Paso County received pre-trial detention SCAAP funding totaling $19,499 for 37 cases that were also submitted for pre-trial detention reimbursement under the SWBPI program. In addition, there are 45 SWBPI cases for which SCAAP reimbursement has been requested but not yet received.
Yuma County received pre-trial detention SCAAP funding totaling $21,415 for 18 cases that were also submitted for pre-trial detention reimbursement under the SWBPI program. In addition, there are three cases for which SCAAP reimbursement has been requested but not yet received.
Maricopa County received pre-trial detention SCAAP funding totaling $5,413 for 14 cases that were also submitted for pre-trial detention reimbursement under the SWBPI program. In addition, there are 10 cases for which SCAAP reimbursement has been requested but not yet received.
San Francisco received SCAAP funds totaling $7,191,393. However, San Francisco was unable to provide a list of cases submitted for reimbursement because their SWBPI submissions were not based on specific cases. As a result, we were unable to determine if San Francisco received pre-trial detention SCAAP funding for any of its SWBPI pre-trial detention cases.
Despite the fact that four of the seven jurisdictions included in our audit received additional federal funds for pre-trial detention services, we found that none of the jurisdictions have taken any action to ensure they were not receiving duplicate SCAAP funds. In our judgment, the seven jurisdictions included in our audit made unsupported certifications in each quarterly SWBPI reimbursement application that the total federal funds provided to the jurisdiction for SWBPI cases during the reporting period did not exceed 100 percent of the jurisdiction’s annualized costs for prosecution and pre-trial detention services.
We met with OJP officials to discuss the possibility of duplicate funding between the SWBPI program and other federal programs that provide funding for prosecution and pre-trial detention services. Based on our discussion, we found that OJP has not taken any action to identify potential duplicate funding between the three programs. Specifically, the OJP official responsible for both the SWBPI program and SCAAP stated that there is not enough information collected from SWBPI reimbursements to identify duplicate funding.
We recommend OJP:
Ensure that SWBPI recipients maintain sufficient documentation to support that SWBPI reimbursements, when combined with other federal prosecution and pre-trial detention funding, do not exceed 100 percent of the costs to prosecute SWBPI cases.
Ensure that SWBPI recipients make the necessary adjustments to SWBPI applications to account for other federal prosecution and pre‑trial detention funding.
Review SWBPI reimbursement applications to identify any potential duplicate funding.
III. ALLOWABILITY OF REIMBURSEMENTS
- We completed seven external audits of individual SWBPI recipients to determine if SWBPI reimbursements were allowable, supported, and in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, guidelines, and terms and conditions of the SWBPI program. Our audits covered SWBPI reimbursements totaling $55.11 million and identified unallowable and unsupported SWBPI reimbursements of $15.57 million, which equates to 28 percent of the total reimbursements. 40 In addition, we identified funds to be put to better use totaling $27,500 related to unsupported and ineligible cases submitted for reimbursement that had not yet been paid.41
Prior to the initiation of this audit, the OIG conducted audits of three SWBPI recipients: (1) New Mexico DPS; (2) Yuma County; and (3) Maricopa County.42 As part of the verification phase of the audit, the OIG conducted four additional audits of: (4) El Paso County; (5) San Diego; (6) Brooks County; and (7) San Francisco. The purpose of these audits was to determine if SWBPI reimbursements were allowable, supported, and in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, guidelines, and terms and conditions of the SWBPI program. In conducting the audits, we determined whether the:
quarterly reimbursement requests were supported and accurate;
cases were submitted for reimbursement in the correct quarters, (the quarter in which the case was resolved);
cases were federally initiated;
cases were federally declined and referred to the state or local jurisdiction for prosecution;
cases were prosecuted by the state or county prosecutor;
defendant was detained at a minimum overnight for the pre-trial detention cases; and
reimbursement amounts were calculated correctly.
Based on the external audits of seven individual SWBPI recipients, we identified unallowable and unsupported SWBPI reimbursements of $15.57 million, which equates to 28 percent of the total reimbursements. In addition, we identified funds to be put to better use totaling $27,500 related to unsupported and ineligible cases submitted for reimbursement that had not yet been paid. In our judgment, the significant amount of dollar-related findings identified during our audits of SWBPI recipients is due in part to the fact that OJP is not adequately overseeing or monitoring the SWBPI program. As discussed in Finding I, we found that OJP does not require SWBPI applicants to provide documentation supporting the number of cases submitted for reimbursement through the electronic application. Additionally, OJP does not review the application’s accuracy or determine the eligibility of the cases submitted for reimbursement and has not conducted any monitoring activities of SWBPI recipients. The results of our SWBPI audits are discussed in detail in the following sections.
SWBPI recipients request reimbursements of SWBPI funds through an on-line application available on the BJA SWBPI website. Pursuant to the SWBPI guidelines, eligible cases are reimbursed using a uniform payment per case schedule based on the length of disposition, which is calculated from the date of the suspect’s arrest through resolution. Resolution of the case is defined as dismissal, conviction, or plea.
We reviewed the reimbursement requests from all seven external audits to determine if the number of cases claimed for each disposition category was supported by the detailed case list obtained during fieldwork. Based on our review, we determined that the reimbursement requests were not always supported by the master case list, resulting in excess reimbursements totaling $5.92 million.43
We also reviewed the detailed case list to determine if the cases were submitted in the correct quarter - the quarter in which the case was resolved. Based on our review, we identified 339 cases that were submitted for reimbursement in the wrong quarter, resulting in questioned costs of $793,933.
In our judgment, these questioned costs could have been avoided if OJP required recipients to submit documentation in support of the reimbursement requests. As stated in Finding I, at a minimum recipients should be required to submit a detailed list of cases for which they are requesting reimbursement. This is consistent with the requirements of other reimbursement programs administered by OJP, such as SCAAP, which requires a list of inmates, identifying information, and the length of detention.
Pursuant to the SWBPI guidelines, an eligible case is any federally initiated criminal case that the U.S. Attorney declined to prosecute and referred to the state or county for prosecution. The SWBPI guidelines define federally initiated as a case resulting from a criminal investigation or an arrest involving federal law enforcement authorities for a potential violation of federal criminal law. This may include investigations resulting from multi‑jurisdictional task forces, (such as HIDTA and the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF)). The SWBPI guidelines further state that, “referred cases are eligible regardless of whether the case was formally declined and referred by a U.S. Attorney, or through a blanket federal declination-referral policy, an accepted federal law enforcement practice, or by federal prosecutorial discretion.” Federally referred cases that are declined and not prosecuted by the state or county are not eligible for reimbursement.
At each site, we selected and analyzed a sample of cases submitted by the recipient to determine whether the cases were eligible for reimbursement under the requirements of the SWBPI guidelines. We identified 1,637 cases that were not eligible for reimbursement, resulting in questioned costs totaling $8.28 million and funds to be put to better use totaling $27,500. Specifically, we found:
985 cases that were not federally initiated, resulting in questioned costs of $5,164,302 and funds to be put to better use of $17,500;
208 cases for which the recipient had not retained supporting case documentation resulting in questioned costs totaling $826,003 and funds to be put to better use of $10,000;
142 cases for which the same defendant was submitted for reimbursement more than once resulting in questioned costs totaling $888,517; and
302 cases submitted for pre-trial detention reimbursement for which the defendant was not detained overnight resulting in questioned costs totaling $1,399,134.
A summary of the findings identified for each site are illustrated in Table 11.
TABLE 11.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FROM PRIOR OIG SWBPI AUDITS
| SITE | NOT FEDERALLY INITIATED | RECORD RETENTION PROBLEMS | DUPLICATE DEFENDANT SUBMITTED | DEFENDANT NOT DETAINED OVERNIGHT | TOTALS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New Mexico DPS | Number of Cases | 203 | - | 4 | - | 207 |
| Questioned Costs 44 | $706,164 | - | $10,922 | - | $717,086 | |
| Funds to Better Use45 | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Yuma County | Number of Cases | 9 | - | - | 16 | 25 |
| Questioned Costs | $16,272 | - | - | $62,919 | $79,191 | |
| Funds to Better Use | $17,500 | - | - | - | $17,500 | |
| Maricopa County | Number of Cases | 3 | 39 | - | - | 42 |
| Questioned Costs | $16,409 | $176,948 | - | - | $193,357 | |
| Funds to Better Use | - | $10,000 | - | - | $10,000 | |
| El Paso County46 | Number of Cases | 627 | - | 131 | 269 | 1,027 |
| Questioned Costs | $3,768,750 | - | $848,250 | $1,272,500 | $5,889,500 | |
| Funds to Better Use | - | - | - | - | - | |
| San Diego | Number of Cases | 12 | 9 | 1 | 15 | 37 |
| Questioned Costs | $69,116 | $27,010 | $5,000 | $56,250 | $157,376 | |
| Funds to Better Use | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Brooks County | Number of Cases | 131 | 160 | 6 | 2 | 299 |
| Questioned Costs | $587,591 | $622,045 | $24,345 | $7,465 | $1,241,446 | |
| Funds to Better Use | - | - | - | - | - | |
| San Francisco | Number of Cases | - | - | - | - | - |
| Questioned Costs | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Funds to Better Use | - | - | - | - | - | |
| TOTALS | TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES | 985 | 208 | 142 | 302 | 1637 |
| TOTAL QUESTIONED COSTS | $5,164,302 | $826,003 | $888,517 | $1,399,134 | $8,277,956 | |
| TOTAL FUNDS TO BETTER USE | $ 17,500 | $ 10,000 | - | - | $ 27,500 |
Feedback From SWBPI Recipients
At each of the seven sites included in our audit, we asked officials for feedback on OJP’s administration of the SWBPI program. Officials at all seven sites stated that OJP has not provided any training on the SWBPI guidelines. Additionally, four of the recipients stated that they had trouble understanding the guidelines and one recipient stated that it thought it understood the guidelines until we conducted our audit.We also asked officials in each of the seven SWBPI sites if there was anything unclear about the SWBPI program that hindered its success. The officials provided the following responses:
The guidelines are open for interpretation.
There is a lack of training.
Case lists should be submitted with applications.
No alerts are given as to when billing periods are open.
No advance notice is given on when payments will be made.
No advance notice is given as to how much the payment will be.
Based on the results of our external audits and the comments we received in the seven jurisdictions, in our judgment OJP also needs to provide training to the participating jurisdictions to help clarify the SWBPI guidelines.
We recommend OJP:
- Provide training to the participating jurisdictions on the SWBPI guidelines.
It should be noted that the dollar-related findings identified in our reviews of the seven SWBPI recipients were addressed in separate external audit reports. Thus, we are not offering any recommendations in this report specific to the $15.57 million in unallowable and unsupported reimbursements and $27,500 in funds to be put to better use.
The dollar-related findings identified in our reviews of the seven SWBPI recipients were addressed in separate external audit reports. Thus, we are not offering any recommendations in this report specific to the $15.57 million in unallowable and unsupported reimbursements and $27,500 in funds to be put to better use.
San Francisco attempted to recreate a master case list, but upon reviewing a sample of cases we determined that none of the cases on the list were federally initiated. Yuma County was able to recreate a list of cases submitted for reimbursement.
The analysis conducted does not include cases beyond the retention period for which supporting documentation was no longer available. Appendix II contains detailed analyses for each of the seven auditees.
San Francisco did not participate in the SWBPI program until FY 2004. Further, San Francisco was unable to provide a list of cases submitted for reimbursement because its SWBPI submissions were not based on specific cases. As a result, we questioned the entire reimbursement received by San Francisco.
The New Mexico DPS was not included in our analysis because it only submits reimbursement requests for prosecution services. As a result, our audit only included SWBPI reimbursements for prosecution services. SWBPI pre‑trial detention reimbursement requests for the State of New Mexico are submitted separately by the counties. Additionally, San Francisco was not included in our analysis because it was unable to provide a list of cases submitted for reimbursement since its SWBPI submissions were not based on specific cases.
We did not analyze pre-trial detention costs for the New Mexico DPS because it only submits reimbursement requests for prosecution services. As a result, our audit only included SWBPI reimbursements for prosecution services. SWBPI pre‑trial detention reimbursement requests are submitted through the State of New Mexico’s counties.
According to SWBPI guidelines, a case is only eligible for pre-trial detention reimbursement if the defendant is held overnight; as a result, by definition all defendants for eligible cases would be detained for at least 2 days.
HIDTA was reauthorized in the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reimbursement Act of 2006 (21 U.S.C § 1701 [2006]).
The other grants include the Criminal Enterprise Unit Grant; Drug Prosecution Grant; Rural Domestic Violence Grant; and the Community Gun Violence Program
New Mexico DPS was not included in our analysis because New Mexico DPS only submits reimbursement requests for prosecution services. As a result, our audit only included SWBPI reimbursements for prosecution services. SWBPI pre‑trial detention reimbursement requests for the State of New Mexico are submitted separately by the counties. Also, Brooks County was not included in our analysis because it did not receive SCAAP funding between FY 2002 through FY 2006.
Our audit of New Mexico DPS only included SWBPI funding totaling $3,780,438 received by the 2nd, 3rd, and 11th, Judicial Districts for the period October 2003 to March 2005.
The dollar-related findings identified in our reviews of the seven SWBPI recipients were addressed in separate external audit reports. Thus, we are not offering any recommendations in this report specific to the $15.57 million in unallowable and unsupported reimbursements and $27,500 in funds to be put to better use.
The 11th Judicial District is comprised of two divisions. However, our audit only included Division I, which received 18 percent of the total SWBPI funds received by the State of New Mexico.
Of the $5.92 million in excess reimbursements, $5.4 million was specific to San Francisco. Although San Francisco provided two separate lists in support of the SWBPI cases submitted for reimbursement, according to San Francisco officials neither list was representative of the SWBPI cases submitted for reimbursement because the SWBPI submissions were not based on actual cases. As a result, we found that all of the SWBPI reimbursements submitted by San Francisco were not supported.
Questioned Costs are expenditures that do not comply with legal, regulatory, or contractual requirements, or are not supported by adequate documentation at the time of the audit, or are unnecessary or unreasonable. Questioned costs may be remedied by offset, waiver, recovery of funds, or the provision of supporting documentation.
Funds Put to Better Use are funds not yet expended that could be used more efficiently if management took actions to implement and complete audit recommendations.
The questioned costs for El Paso County are based on the unallowable amounts requested, not received.