Grantee Evaluation discussion

User Generated

Xelfoyvffzn

Business Finance

Description

My part is to write a 130-150 word paragraph on 3 Things the Grantee did correctly. I have attached the file below for your viewing and guidance.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Audit of the Office of Justice Programs Correctional Systems and Correctional Alternatives on Tribal Lands Program Grant Awarded to the Eight Northern Indian Pueblos Council Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico Audit Division GR-60-16-001 REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE November 2015 AUDIT OF THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS CORRECTIONAL SYSTEMS AND CORRECTIONAL ALTERNATIVES ON TRIBAL LANDS PROGRAM GRANT AWARDED TO THE EIGHT NORTHERN INDIAN PUEBLOS COUNCIL OHKAY OWINGEH, NEW MEXICO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ∗ The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) completed an audit of the grant awarded by the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), under the Correctional Systems and Correctional Alternatives on Tribal Lands (CSCATL) Program, to the Eight Northern Indian Pueblos Council (ENIPC) in Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico. The ENIPC was awarded $5,636,317 under Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0077 to construct an alternative substance abuse treatment facility for juveniles. The objective of this audit was to determine whether costs claimed under the grant were allowable, supported, and in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, guidelines, and terms and conditions. To accomplish this objective, we assessed performance in the following areas of grant management: financial management, expenditures, budget management and control, drawdowns, federal financial reports, and program performance. The criteria we audited against are contained in the OJP Financial Guide, Title 28 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, and the grant award documents. As of March 2014, the ENIPC had drawn down $5,636,317 of the total grant funds awarded. We examined the ENIPC’s policies and procedures, accounting records, and financial and progress reports, and found that the ENIPC did not comply with essential award conditions related to the use of funds and grant matching. Specifically, the ENIPC: (1) incurred $20,659 ($10,443 + $10,215) in unallowable costs for items purchased after the grant end date and unbudgeted indirect costs charged to the grant; and (2) allocated $626,257 in unsupported costs to the grant match. Our report contains two recommendations to OJP that are detailed in the Findings and Recommendations section of this report. Our audit objective, scope, and methodology are discussed in Appendix 1 and our Schedule of Dollar-Related Findings appears in Appendix 2. We discussed the results of our audit with ENIPC officials and have included their comments in the report, as applicable. In addition, we requested a response to our draft audit report from OJP and the ENIPC; their responses are appended to the final audit report as appendices 3 and 4, respectively. ∗ A redaction was made to the full version of this report for privacy reasons. The redaction is contained only in Appendix 4, the auditee’s response, and is of individuals’ names in e-mail addresses. i AUDIT OF THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS CORRECTIONAL SYSTEMS AND CORRECTIONAL ALTERNATIVES ON TRIBAL LANDS PROGRAM GRANT AWARDED TO THE EIGHT NORTHERN INDIAN PUEBLOS COUNCIL OHKAY OWINGEH, NEW MEXICO TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 Audit Approach ..................................................................................... 1 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................ 3 Grant Financial Management .................................................................. 3 Grant Expenditures ............................................................................... 3 Direct Costs ................................................................................ 3 Indirect Costs.............................................................................. 4 Matching Costs ............................................................................ 4 Budget Management and Control ............................................................ 5 Drawdowns .......................................................................................... 6 Federal Financial Reports ....................................................................... 6 Program Performance and Accomplishments ............................................ 7 Categorical Assistance Progress Reports ......................................... 7 Program Goals and Objectives ....................................................... 7 Conclusion ........................................................................................... 7 Recommendations................................................................................. 7 APPENDIX 1: OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY ...................................... 9 APPENDIX 2: SCHEDULE OF DOLLAR-RELATED FINDINGS................................. 10 APPENDIX 3: OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT.................................................................................................. 11 APPENDIX 4: THE EIGHT NORTHERN INDIAN PUEBLOS COUNCIL OHKAY OWINGEH, NEW MEXICO RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT ............. 14 APPENDIX 5: OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF ACTIONS NECESSARY TO CLOSE THE REPORT ....................................... 18 AUDIT OF THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS CORRECTIONAL SYSTEMS AND CORRECTIONAL ALTERNATIVES ON TRIBAL LANDS PROGRAM GRANT AWARDED TO THE EIGHT NORTHERN INDIAN PUEBLOS COUNCIL OHKAY OWINGEH, NEW MEXICO INTRODUCTION The u.s. Department of Justice (OOJ) Office of the Inspector Genera l (OIG) completed an audit of the grant awarded by the Office of Justice Pro grams (OJP), Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), under the Correctiona l Systems a nd Correctiona l Alternatives on Tribal Lands (CSCATL) Program, to the Eight Northern Indian Pueblos Council ( ENIPC) in Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico. 1 The ENIPC was awarded one grant totaling $5,636,3 17 as shown in Table 1. Table 1 Grants Awarded to the ENIPC Funding through t he CSCATL Program supports efforts related to plann ing, constructing, and renovating t riba l justice facilities associated with the incarceration and rehabilitation of juvenile and adu lt offenders subject to triba l jurisdiction, including exploring community - based alternatives. In 2010, the CSCATL Program was modified to allow the use of funds to construct multipurpose justice centers that combine tribal po lice, courts, and corrections services. 2 Audit Approach The objective of this audit was to determine whether costs claimed under the grant were allowable, supported, and in accorda nce with applicab le laws, regulations, guidelines, and ter ms and conditions. To accomplish this objective, we assessed performance in the fo llowing areas of grant management : financia l management, expenditures, budget management and control, drawdowns, fede ral financial reports, and program performance. We tested compliance with what we consider to be the most important conditions of the g rant. The criteria we aud ited against are contained in the OJP Financia l Guide, Title 28 of the u.s. Code of Federa l Regu lations, and the grant I Th is program was formerly referred to as t he Correctional Facilities on Tribal Lands Program. 2 42 u.s.c. §1 3709 1 award documents. The results of our analysis are discussed in detail in the Findings and Recommendations section of the report. Appendix 1 contains additional information on this audit’s objective, scope, and methodology. The Schedule of Dollar-Related Findings appears in Appendix 2. 2 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OJP awarded the ENIPC Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0077 for $5,636,317 to construct an alternative substance abuse treatment facility for juveniles. 3 The objective of Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0077 was to build an alternative substance abuse treatment facility for juveniles in Taos, New Mexico. Grant Financial Management According to the OJP Financial Guide, all grant recipients and subrecipients are required to establish and maintain adequate accounting systems and financial records and to accurately account for funds awarded to them. We reviewed the ENIPC’s Single Audit Reports for fiscal years 2013 and 2014 to identify internal control weaknesses and significant non-compliance issues related to federal awards. We also conducted interviews with financial staff, examined policy and procedures, and inspected grant documents to determine whether the ENIPC adequately safeguards grant funds. Based on our review, we did not identify any concerns related to grant financial management. Grant Expenditures For Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0077, the ENIPC approved budget included personnel and fringe benefits, travel, equipment, supplies, construction, consultant/contracts, indirect and other direct costs. To determine whether costs charged to the awards were allowable, supported, and properly allocated in compliance with award requirements, we tested all 62 transactions totaling $5,536,317. The following sections describe the results of that testing. Direct Costs The majority of grant transactions included expenditures for construction, equipment, and travel. During our review, we verified that grant expenditures were adequately supported by documentation and were for purposes that supported grant objectives. We identified total questioned costs of $10,443. We found 7 unallowable transactions totaling $10,443 for items the ENIPC purchased more than 15 days after the grant end date. Specifically, we found that the ENIPC charged: • $6,469 for 13 computers, • $1,825 for 12 printers, • $2,084 for Microsoft Office Licenses, and 3 The ENIPC originally planned to build an alternative sentencing facility for adults; however, the ENIPC received OJP approval through a GAN to revise the project scope from an adult to a juvenile facility. 3 • $65 for window blinds. We recommend that OJP remedy $10,443 for expenditures that occurred after the grant end date. Indirect Costs Indirect costs are costs of an organization that are not readily assignable to a particular project, but are necessary to the operation of the organization and the performance of the project. OJP approved indirect costs for Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0077, and the ENIPC had an approved indirect cost rate of 19.8 percent. The OJP Financial Guide requires a Grant Adjustment Notice (GAN) if there is any dollar increase or decrease to the indirect costs category of an approved budget. The ENIPC originally budgeted $1.145 million in indirect costs to the grant. However, in August 2013, the ENIPC requested and received approval for a GAN from OJP for a revised grant budget. Under the GAN, the ENIPC revised the grant budget to reflect a reduction of $1,076,203 in the budgeted amount for indirect costs and an allocation of all indirect costs of $68,797 to the grant’s matching requirement, thereby removing any indirect costs budgeted to the grant. However, at the time OJP approved the GAN, the ENIPC had already charged and received reimbursement for $10,215 in indirect costs under the grant. We found that the ENIPC did not apply any indirect costs to the match requirement or remove the $10,215 previously charged to the grant for indirect costs. Therefore, we question the $10,215 in indirect costs as unallowable. We recommend that OJP remedy $10,215 in unbudgeted indirect costs that were charged to the grant. Matching Costs Matching costs are the grant recipient’s share of the total project costs. The OJP Financial Guide requires grant recipients to maintain records which clearly show the source, the amount, and the timing of all matching contributions. The ENIPC was required to expend $626,257 in local funds for Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0077, which represents a 10-percent local match. We assessed matching expenditures applied to the grant and determined the accuracy, support, and allowability of expenditures with matching funds. The ENIPC applied personnel and fringe benefit costs, and land valuation, to satisfy the 10-percent match requirement. According to their accounting records, the ENIPC applied personnel costs for six employees totaling $69,572 in order to satisfy a portion of their match requirement under Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0077. For the personnel costs applied to the match, the ENIPC applied a percentage of each employee’s salary based on the percentage of time each employee worked on grant activities. Therefore, we reviewed the ENIPC documentation related to those personnel costs, but were unable to verify the salary amounts charged for the six employees. Additionally, the ENIPC documentation did not include timesheets for all six employees and we were unable to verify the time expended on grant and non-grant 4 related activities for the six employees. According to Special Condition 13, the recipient agrees to track, account for, and report on all funds from the Recovery Act award separately from all other funds. Further, all personnel whose activities are to be charged to the award will maintain timesheets to document hours worked for activities related to the award and non-award related activities. Therefore, we determined that the $69,572 in personnel costs the ENIPC applied to the match were not adequately supported in accordance with the OJP Financial Guide and Special Condition 13. The ENIPC also applied $16,685 in fringe benefits costs to the match requirement for the six employees. As previously stated, we were unable to verify the salary amounts allocated to the match. Since the ENIPC used a percentage of employee salaries and the ENIPC did not break out the fringe benefits costs applied per employee, we could not verify the fringe benefits match amounts applied per employee. Therefore, we determined the $16,685 in fringe benefit costs applied to the match were not adequately supported in accordance with the OJP Financial Guide. Finally, the ENIPC applied $540,000 in land valuation to the match requirement. The land is located in Taos, New Mexico, where the ENIPC built the alternative treatment facility. To support the land match, the ENIPC provided a lease for the land with Taos Pueblo, but the land lease did not identify any value for the land. 4 Therefore, we determined the $540,000 in land valuation applied to the match was not adequately supported in accordance with the OJP Financial Guide. As previously stated, the ENIPC was required to expend $626,257 in local funds for Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0077. We determined the entire match amount of $626,257 was unsupported because the ENIPC did not maintain adequate records in accordance with the OJP Financial Guide. Therefore, we recommend that OJP remedies the $626,257 in unsupported matching allocations. Budget Management and Control According to the OJP Financial Guide, the recipient is responsible for establishing and maintaining an adequate accounting system, which includes the ability to compare actual expenditures or outlays with budgeted amounts for each award. Additionally, the grant recipient must initiate a GAN for a budget modification that reallocates funds among budget categories if the proposed cumulative change is greater than 10 percent of the total award amount. Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0077 was designated as a construction grant, therefore, we determined that the ENIPC was required to follow 28 CFR 66.30 (c). According to 28 CFR 66.30 (c), construction grants to state and local government do not require grantees to request approval for any deviations from the budget unless additional grant funds are necessary. As a result, we found the 10-percent rule does not apply. 4 Taos Pueblo, a member of the Eight Northern Indian Pueblos, provided the land to the ENIPC for the alternative treatment facility. 5 Drawdowns According to the OJP Financial Guide, an adequate accounting system should be established to maintai n documentation t o support all receipt s of federal funds. If at the end of the grant award, recipients have drawn d ow n funds in excess of fede ral expend itures, unused funds m ust be returned t o the awarding agency. We we re u nable to speak with the ENIPC per sonnel w ho were responsible fo r drawdowns because t hey we re no longer employed by the ENIPC; however, we did not find any issues wi th the grant drawdowns. At the time of this audit, Grant Number 2009-ST-69-0077 was full y drawn down. To assess w hether the ENIPC managed grant receipts in accordance with feder al requirements, we co mpared the t ota l amount reimbursed t o the t otal expenditures in the accounting reco rds. We determined that the ENIPC complied with the requirement, as total expenditures we re equa l t o cum ulative drawdowns as of January 2, 2014. Federal Financial Reports Accord ing to the OJP Finan cial Gu ide, recipients shall report the actual expenditures and un liquidated obliga ti ons incurred for the reporting period on each financial report. To determine whether the Federa l Finan cial Reports ( FFR) submitted by the ENIPC we re accurate, we compared the fou r most recent reports t o the ENIPC's accounting records fo r Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0077. As shown in Table 2 , we identified a discrepancy between t he expe nditures in the accounting records and w hat the ENIPC reported in the final FFR for Grant Number 2009-ST­ B9-0077. Table 2 FFR Analysis REPORT PERIOD TO DATES PERIOD EXPENDITURES PER FFR PERIOD EXPENDITURES PER FFR ACCOUNTING RECORDS 1/1/2013 3/31/2013 $0 $0 $0 4/1/2013 6/30/2013 $1 1 26476 $1 126476 $0 7/1/2013 9/30/2013 $3025 247 $3 025 247 $0 10/1/2013 11/30/2013 $ 1422786 $1 076446 $346 340 REPORT PERIOD FROM OATES PERIOD DIFFERENCE Source: OJP and the ENIPC During our audit, we found that $ 335 ,896 of the difference occurred due to the timing of expenditures the ENIPC reco rded in their accounting records. However, the remaining $ 10,44 3 was due to expenditures for items the ENIPC incurred after the grant end date, as discussed p reviously in this report. :') :') Difference due t o round ing. 6 Program Performance and Accomplishments We reviewed the Categorical Assistance Progress Reports (progress reports), which are completed semiannually, to determine if the required reports are accurate. We also reviewed the grant documentation, and interviewed ENIPC officials to determine whether the ENIPC implemented the program goals and objectives. Categorical Assistance Progress Reports According to the OJP Financial Guide, the funding recipient should ensure that valid and auditable source documentation is available to support all data collected for each performance measure specified in the program solicitation. In order to verify the information in progress reports, we selected a sample of performance measures from the two most recent progress reports submitted for Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0077. We then traced the items to supporting documentation maintained by the ENIPC. Based on our progress report testing, we did not identify any instances where the accomplishments described in the progress reports did not match the supporting documentation. Program Goals and Objectives The objective of Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0077 was to construct an alternative substance abuse treatment facility for Native American juveniles ages 12 to 21 in the region. The ENIPC completed the overall objective of constructing the facility and OJP closed out the grant on April 3, 2014. We toured the facility and interviewed ENIPC personnel who explained they were very satisfied with the results of the construction. Based on our observations, there were no indications that the ENIPC did not meet the stated objectives of the grant. Conclusion The objective of this audit was to determine whether costs claimed under the grant were allowable, supported, and in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, guidelines, and terms and conditions. We examined the ENIPC’s accounting records, budget documents, financial and progress reports, and financial management procedures. We found that the ENIPC: (1) incurred $20,659 ($10,443 + $10,215) in unallowable costs for items purchased after the grant end date and unbudgeted indirect costs that were charged to the grant; and (2) allocated $626,257 in unsupported costs to the grant match. We made two recommendations to improve the ENIPC’s management of awards. Recommendations We recommend that OJP: 1. Remedy $20,659 in unallowable expenditures related to the following issues: 7 a. Remedy $10,443 for expenditures that occurred after the grant end date. b. Remedy $10,215 in unbudgeted indirect costs that were charged to the grant. 2. Remedy $626,257 in unsupported matching allocations related to the following issues: a. Remedy $69,572 in unsupported costs related to salaries that were allocated to the grant match. b. Remedy $16,685 in unsupported costs related to fringe benefits that were allocated to the grant match. c. Remedy $540,000 in unsupported land valuation that was allocated to the grant match. 8 APPENDIX 1 OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY The objective of this audit was to determine whether costs claimed under the grant were allowable, supported, and in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, guidelines, and terms and conditions. To accomplish this objective, we assessed performance in the following areas of grant management: financial management, expenditures, budget management and control, drawdowns, federal financial reports, and program performance. We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. This was an audit of the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), grant awarded to the Eight Northern Indian Pueblos Council (ENIPC) under the Correctional Systems and Correctional Alternatives on Tribal Lands (CSCATL) Program. The ENIPC was awarded $5,636,317 under Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0077, and as of January 2014, had drawn down the total amount of grant funds awarded. Our audit concentrated on, but was not limited to September 21, 2009, the award date for Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0077, through May 14, 2015, the last day of our fieldwork. At the time of our audit, Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0077 had ended and was fully drawn down. To accomplish our objective, we tested compliance with what we consider to be the most important conditions of the ENIPC’s activities related to the audited grant. Due to the small number of grant transactions, we tested all grant expenditures including payroll and fringe benefit charges. We performed samplebased audit testing for financial reports, progress reports, and Recovery Act Reports. In this effort, we employed a judgmental sampling design to obtain broad exposure to numerous facets of the grant reviewed. This non-statistical sample design did not allow projection of the test results to the universe from which the samples were selected. The criteria we audited against are contained in the OJP Financial Guide, Title 28 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, and the grant award documents. In addition, we evaluated the ENIPC’s (1) grant financial management, including grant-related procedures in place for procurement, contractor monitoring, financial reports, and progress reports; (2) budget management and controls; (3) drawdowns; and (4) program performance. During our audit, we obtained information from OJP’s Grant Management System (GMS) as well as the ENIPC’s accounting system specific to the management of DOJ funds during the audit period. We did not test the reliability of those systems as a whole, therefore any findings we identified involving information from those systems we verified with documentation from other sources. 9 APPENDIX 2 SCHEDULE OF DOLLAR-RELATED FINDINGS QUESTIONED COSTS 6 AMOUNT PAGE Unallowable Costs Items Purchased After Grant End Indirect Costs Total Unallowable Costs $10,443 4 10,215 4 $20,659 Unsupported Costs Match Requirement $626,257 Total Unsupported Costs $626,257 GROSS QUESTIONED COSTS $646,916 NET QUESTIONED COSTS $646,916 6 4-5 Questioned Costs are expenditures that do not comply with legal, regulatory, or contractual requirements; 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. 10 APPENDIX 3 OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT U.S. Department of Justice Qffice of Justice Programs Office ofAudit, Assessment, and Management Washington, D.C. 20531 OCT 2 2 2015 MEMORANDUM TO: David M. Sheeren Regio na l Audit Manager Denver Regional A ud it Office Office of the Inspector General FROM: RaJph~ SUBJ ECT: Response to the Draft Audit Report, Audit of the Office ofJustice Programs, Correctional Systems and Correctional Alternatives on Tribal Lands Program, Grant Awarded to the Eight Northern indian Pueblos Council, Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico Dl~---- This memoran dum is in reference to your correspondence, dated September 18, 2015, transmitting the above-referenced draft audi t report for the Eig ht Northern fndian Pueblos Council (ENIPC). We consider the subject report resolved and request written acceptance of this action from your office. T he draft report contains two recommendations and $646,916 in questioned costs. The following is the Office of Justi ce Pro grams' (OJP) analysis oftbe draft audit report recommendations. For ease of review, the recommendation s are restated in bold and are followed by our response. 1. the We recommend that O .JP rcmedy $20,659 l in unallowable expenditures rclated to following issues: a. $10,443 for expenditures that occurred after the grant end date. b. $10,215 in un budgeted indirect costs that were charged to the grant. OIP agrees with this recommendation. We will coordinate with ENIPC to remedy the $20,659 in questioned costs, charged to Grant N umber 2009-ST-B9-0077. 1 The total amount of questioned costs for this recommendation was rounded. 11 2. We recommend that OJI' rcmcdy S626,257 ill unsupported matching aUocations re lated to the foll owing issues: 11.. S69,572 in unsupported eosts n:lated to salaries thai were allocated 10 thl." grant ma tch . b. SI6,685 in unsupported costs related to frin ge bellefits thll t were II l10cated to the gra nt match. e. S540,000 ill unsupported land valuation that was Mlloeated to the grant mutch. OJP agrees with this recommendation. We will coordinate with ENIPC 10 remedy the $626,257 in quest ioned costs, related to unsupponcd matching COSts thnt werc chargcd to Grant Number 2oo9-ST-139-oo77. We appreciate the opponunity to review and commenl on the draft audi t rcpon. If you have any questions or require additional infonnation, please contact JeffLTY A. Ua1ey, Deputy Director, Audit and Review Division, on (202) 616-2936. ec: Maureen A. Hcnncbcrg Deputy Assistant Anomey General fOT Operations and Management Anna Martincz Senior Policy Advisor Officc of the Assistant Anomey Genel'lll Jeffery A. Haley Deputy Director, Aud iland Review Di vision Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management Denise O' Donnell Director Bureau of Justice As~i~tancc Tracey Trautman Deputy Director for Programs Bureau of Justice Assistance Pamela Cammarata Chief of Staff Bureau of Justice Assistance Michael Bottllcr Budget Director Bureau of Justice Assistance 12 cc: Amanda LoCicero Budget Analyst Bureau of Justice Assistance Dara Schulman Grant Program Specialist Bureau of Justice Assistance Leigh Benda Chief Financial Officer Christal McNeil-Wright Associate Chief Financial Officer Grants Financial Management Division Office of the Chief Financial Officer Jerry Conty Assistant Chief Financial Officer Grants Financial Management Division Office of the Chief Financial Officer Aida Brumme Acting Manager, Evaluation and Oversight Branch Grants Financial Management Division Office of the ChiefFinancial Officer Richard P. Theis Assistant Director, Audit Liaison Group Internal Review and Evaluation Office Justice Management Division OJP Executive Secretariat Control Number 11'20150923071810 3 13 APPENDIX 4 THE EIGHT NORTHERN INDIAN PUEBLOS COUNCIL OHKAY OWINGEH, NEW MEXICO RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT 7 Board of Govern ors Board of Governors Honorable J. Michael Chavarria Pueblo o f Santa C lara Chairman Honorable James R. Mountain Pueblo de San IIdefonso Vice- Chairman Honorable Phillip A. Perez Pueblo of Nambe Honorable Joseph M .Talachy Pueblo of Pojoaque Honorable Gary Pyne PueblO o f Picuris Honorable Milton P. Herrera Pueblo of Tesuque H onorable Earl N. Sala;o;ar Ohkay Owlngeh Honorable Luis Romoro Taos Pueblo Gil VlgH Executive Director October 151 ,20 15 M s . Linda J. Taylor. CPA Lead Audito r, A udit a nd Review Di vision Office of Au dit, Assessment, and Management Office of Justice Prog rams U. S. D e pattment of Jtlstice 810 7 1h Sireet, N. W . Washington, DC 2053 1 VIA: Electronic Mai l at: Taylor, Linda < Linda.Taylor2@llsdoj .gov> Mr. Da v id M. Shecren Regio nal Audit Manager O ffi ce o f the Inspector General US . Department of" Justice 11 20 Linco ln Street, Suite 1500 D enver, CO 80203 VIA: Electronic Mail at Sheeren, David M. (OIG) David.M.Sheer·en@usdoj.gov Dear Ms. Tay lo r and Mr. S heeren, Thank you very muc h for providin g Eig ht NO lihern Indi a n Pueblo Co unc il (ENIPC), Inc the oPPOliullity to respond to the findings stated in the draft audit report. Below are Ollr responses to the findings. A~ Rem e dy $10,443 for ex p e ndi t ures that occurred after the g rant e n d d a te: EN IPC's s t a ff member employed in the Accou nting Department was unaware about the policy and procedure pertai ning to the need for expenditures to occur before the grant end date. ENIPC, under the leaders hip of the curre n t Co ntroll e r, h as instituted stringent procedures for staff tra ining in the pl·oper exec ution of expe ndi t ures in complia n ce w it h the g ran t' s bu d getary guideli ncs. Furth c l', ENIPC h as d esig ned a nd impl e m en te d policies to ensu r e expenditures occur within th e a ppl'oved tim e lin es. The staff m ember r es ponsi ble for incurring expen diture after the grant end date is P.O. BOX 969. 327 EAGLE DRIVE, SAN JUAN PUEBLO. NEW MEXICO 87566 - (505) 747.1593 Fax: (505) 747. 1599 "Promote, facilitate and improve programs to meet the unique flf~eds o f Pueblo people . . 7 Attachments to this response were not included in this final report. 14 An~ rd nl c;"""ronf!\ Hon",ab~ Anar~ J. Micha81 Chavarria nl ('.nvl'rnnf!\ Honorable Jams. R. Mo!.mtar. Pueblo ~ San tldefonso Pueblo of S8nta CIII", Chairmao Vir;~Charman Honorable Philip A Perez Pueblo of "~mbe Honorable Joseph 1.1, TBlacI\y P\I&b1o 01 Pojo,lque Honorable ('>8ry f'yne Pueblo of PlCUns Honorahle Milton 1". Heffem P\lebloofTesque Honorablo Luis RoroofO Tao! Pueblo Honorablo Earl " . Salazar Ohkay Owingeh GitVi\li EXe\luliw Oiredo! no longer employed in the Accounting Department. It .~hould he noted that ENI PC is located in a remote geography, whereby it is challenging to fi nd persons with sliffident skills ami qualifi rations in erants manaeement to work in t.he Ar.r ml11tine Department. ENI PC was recently fortunate to recruit a person for the Accounting UcparLmenl, who is Imowleugeable and well-versed in the appropriate fisca l management of grants. Going forward, EN IPC wi ll make plar.e add itional emphasis to ensure that sure an error is not repeated. 0- Remedy $10,215 in unbudgeted indirect costs that were charged to the grant: ENIPCs Accounting Department stafl charged 0 01 in 20 10 indirect costs of $10,215. In 20 13, ENIPC and DO) revised the budget with an agreement to not charge indirect costs. However, by 20 ] 3, the acc01lnting books in the fisc;]1 system for 201 0 were already closed and could not be opened to back adju st the indirect costof$1 U,£15 that was charged in 2010. The Accounting Department staff was under the impression that the change in allocatiun uf the indirect cust wuul d be pruspecti ve (as of 2013) and not ret rospective (as of 2010). It should be noted that the illdirect cost of $1, 145,000 was computed on the original amount would have heen sufficient for EN II'C's match amuunL However, since VOl had insufficient funds to allocale to EN IPC for the completion of the project, it was mutually deciden to revise the budget in ;W 13 to remove the indirect costs on the $5,636,317 direct costs. Instead of receiving $1,1 45,000 in indirect costs, ENIPC charged DOl $10,215 in indirect costs for only project year 2010, this despite the fact that EN IPCs indirect cost rate was 19.8%. hudg~t of $5,6:-Hi,.317. Th~ i n dir~ct co.~t Furthermore, EN II'C paid for a portion of the constru", vniqoe needs of Pu",blo people .. 16 s,"~")7m a wed of Goyomors eo.rd otGovtIDOl' Hooorablol J . MIChael elra.alr;;' HOfIOIobIeJames R Mountain 1"'ufIb~ of ~n1~ CI8r~ Chainnan I'IiObIo de ::;:.n Iklelo;roso;r Vm· Ch9irnvrn Honorable Ph~1ip A. Perez Puookr of Nambo Honorable J~h M.TRliIdoy Pueblo 01 Pojo~ue HonorirIbIe MdIoo 1'. PIIfthIn nI T""'''1I1'' appraiAA1. EN lre seeks your guidance on an appropriate methodology to calculate the value ol"thc land. Sincerely, GilVigjl Executive lJin:Clor'_.~"",,,,=--,~~-/, ,---_ __ { El,h.h Mish", ;;:L--:=' . (.ontroller----
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Running Head: GRANTEE EVALUATION

1

Grantee Evaluation
Institutional Affiliation
Date

GRANTEE EVALUATION

2

The grantee in the audit case are the juveniles who received the grant from the department of
justice ...


Anonymous
I was struggling with this subject, and this helped me a ton!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags