In planning and performing our audit, we considered the internal controls at JMD and the 17 components included in our audit for the purpose of determining our auditing procedures. The evaluation was not made for the purpose of providing assurance on the internal control structure as a whole. However, we noted certain matters that we consider to be reportable conditions under the generally accepted Government Auditing Standards.36
The IC3 relies on FBI field offices and state and local law enforcement to provide neutralization information for the key indicator “ Number of High‑Impact Internet Fraud Targets Neutralized.” As a result, the IC3 may not receive any feedback and therefore, cannot assure the accuracy of the neutralization information for this key indicator.
EOUSA and the litigating divisions use two different dates – the disposition date and the system date – to report on the key indicator “ Percentage of Cases Favorably Resolved,” which may provide inconsistent results.
EOUSA and the litigating divisions may transfer cases among the litigating divisions and may also work jointly on cases. Therefore, multiple agencies may be reporting the same cases in the outcome numbers provided to JMD. As a result, some duplicate cases are included in the data consolidated by JMD for the key indicator “Percentage of Cases Favorably Resolved.”
Data for the key indicator “Number of Homicides Per Site Funded Under the Weed and Seed Program,” is reported annually to OJP on the grantees’ GPRA Reports. W e found that the data sets used to report on the number of homicides per Weed and Seed site included data from all reporting sites irrespective of whether reporting occurred in previous years. Therefore, the data sets used were not comparative from one year to the next because different grantees reported in each data set.
For the key indicator “Number of Participants in the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program,” the BJA overstated the number of RSAT program participants by 3,610 participants or 10.21 percent and therefore, reported inaccurate data to JMD for reporting in the PAR.
The data collected by the BJA for the key indicator “Increase in the Graduation Rate of Drug Courts Program Participants,” does not encompass an entire fiscal year. Therefore, the drug court graduation percentage reported in the FY 2006 PAR may be inaccurate because it represents a 6‑month period (January through June), instead of a 12‑month period. Further, this may affect the 13.8 percent increase in the graduation rate compared to FY 2005 rate that was reported in the FY 2006 PAR.
For the key indicator “Rate of assaults in Federal Prisons (Assaults per 5,000 Inmates),” the BOP reported the rate of assaults per 5,000 inmates as 119. However, we found that the BOP should have reported 116 as the rate of assaults per 5,000 inmates. Therefore, BOP overstated the rate of assaults by 2.76 percent and reported inaccurate data to JMD for reporting in the FY 2006 PAR.
Because we are not expressing an opinion on the components’ internal control structure as a whole, this statement is intended solely for the information and use of JMD and the 17 components in overseeing each key indicator’s data collection, storage, validation, and verification processes and the disclosure of the data limitations.