The objectives of the audit were to: (1) evaluate OJP’s administration and management of SWBPI reimbursements; (2) identify additional federal programs with overlapping objectives; and (3) determine if SWBPI reimbursement requests submitted by eligible jurisdictions are allowable, supported, and in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, guidelines, and terms and conditions of the SWBPI program.
We conducted our audit in accordance with Government Auditing Standards. We included such tests as were necessary to accomplish the audit objectives. The audit generally covered, but is not limited to, SWBPI reimbursements received during the period FYs 2002 through 2006. Audit work was conducted at OJP, ONDCP, ATF, DEA, FBI, EOUSA and the following selected SWBPI recipients: (1) New Mexico DPS; (2) Yuma County, Arizona; (3) Maricopa County, Arizona; (4) El Paso County, Texas; (5) San Diego, California; (6) Brooks County, Texas; and (7) San Francisco, California.48
To evaluate the effectiveness of OJP’s administration and oversight over SWBPI reimbursements, we assessed the processes used by OJP for reviewing and approving applications, reimbursing funds, and monitoring recipients. Specifically, we:
identified the SWBPI guidelines and determined whether the criteria was complete and well-defined,
evaluated OJP’s process for verifying the eligibility and accuracy of cases submitted for reimbursement,
evaluated OJP’s process for monitoring SWBPI recipients,
assessed the quality of guidance provided by OJP to ensure critical program requirements are understood and met by recipients,
coordinated with the U.S. Attorneys and federal law enforcement agencies and examined their declination-referral policies along with their working relationship with the state and local law enforcement,
assessed the accuracy of the reimbursement amounts and categories,
reviewed recipient data to determine the combined federal reimbursement amounts received did not exceed 100 percent of the jurisdictions annualized costs for prosecution and pre-trial detention services, and
reviewed recipient data to determine the dollar amounts jurisdictions would have received if the prosecution and pre-trial detention services were calculated separately.
To identify any potential duplicate funding sources, we:
coordinated with ONDCP to determine if its HIDTA prosecution funds are duplicated with SWBPI funds,
coordinated with OJP to determine if SCAAP detention funds are duplicated with SWBPI funds,
reviewed recipient data to determine if HIDTA funds and other federal prosecution funds are being requested for the same prosecutions, and
reviewed recipient data to determine if SCAAP funds and SWBPI funds are being requested for the same detention services.
To determine if SWBPI reimbursements are allowable, supported, and in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, guidelines, and terms and conditions of the SWBPI program, we:
selected a sample of SWBPI recipients and conducted audits of OJP’s administration of the selected recipients, and
assessed the allowability of cases reimbursed in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, guidelines, and terms and conditions of the program.
We included the work performed in prior OIG SWBPI audits in our assessment of the allowability of cases reimbursed.