Office of the Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Audit of the Office of
 

Justice Programs Correctional Systems
 

and Correctional Alternatives on Tribal 

Lands Program Grants Awarded to the
 

Navajo Division of Public Safety
 

Window Rock, Arizona
 

Audit Division GR-60-15-015 September 2015 
This page left intentionally blank. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AUDIT OF THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS
 

CORRECTIONAL SYSTEMS AND CORRECTIONAL ALTERNATIVES
 

ON TRIBAL LANDS PROGRAM GRANTS AWARDED TO THE
 

NAVAJO DIVISION OF PUBLIC SAFETY
 

WINDOW ROCK, ARIZONA
 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) 

completed an audit of grants 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 Navajo Division 

of Public Safety (NDPS), a department of the Navajo Nation, in Window Rock, 

Arizona.

1 

The objective of this audit was to determine whether costs claimed under the 

grants were allowable, supported, and in accordance with applicable laws, 

regulations, guidelines, and the terms and conditions of the grants. 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 and the grant 

award documents. 

NDPS was awarded four grants totaling $70,542,837 to plan and construct 

tribal justice facilities associated with the incarceration and rehabilitation of adult 

offenders subject to tribal jurisdiction. Specifically, the amounts of the four grants 

were to support the following four projects: (1) $150,000 for the planning and 

design of a correctional facility in Dilkon, Arizona; (2) $150,000 for the planning 

and design of a new correctional facility in Kayenta, Arizona; (3) approximately 

$38.6 million to build a correctional facility in Tuba City, Arizona, to replace the 

existing jail; and (4) approximately $31.7 million to build a multi-purpose justice 

center in Kayenta, Arizona, to replace the existing jail. 

As of January 2015, NDPS had drawn down $65,579,800 in grant funds, 

although none of the awarded grants were fully expended. We examined NDPS 

accounting records, financial and progress reports, and operating policies and 

procedures and found that NDPS did not comply with essential award conditions 

related to the use of funds, performance, and financial controls. Specifically, NDPS: 

(1) did not check the suspension and debarment status of contractors paid with 

grant funds; (2) incurred $656,921 in unsupported costs and $2,554,924 in 

unallowable costs; (3) did not meet the $16,669 match requirement for one grant; 

(4) did not expend $535,545 in awarded funds; (5) did not submit accurate Federal 

1 This program was formerly referred to as the Correctional Facilities on Tribal Lands Program. 

i 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Financial Reports for three of the four grants; and (6) expended $290,116 in 

unnecessary planning grants. 

We further found that NDPS built correctional facilities in Tuba City and 

Kayenta, Arizona with capacities that were at least 250 percent larger than needed, 

at an excess cost of $32,034,623. In Tuba City, NDPS constructed a 132-bed 

corrections facility with the $38.6 million grant, even though its March 2007 master 

plan called for building a 48-bed corrections space at a cost of $18.2 million and 

even though the average monthly jail occupancy for Tuba City from 2008 to 2014 

was between 14 and 22 inmates, with a high of 49 inmates in July 2010. Similarly, 

in Kayenta, NDPS built an 80-bed corrections facility and a police station with the 

$31.7 million grant, even though its March 2007 master plan stated a need for a 

32-bed facility and law enforcement area at a cost of $20.0 million and even though 

the average monthly jail occupancy for Kayenta from 2008 through 2014 was 

between 7 and 11 inmates, with a high of 24 inmates in December 2011. 

As a result, based on the needs stated in the March 2007 master plan for 

Tuba City and Kayenta, which were relied on in the grant applications, we 

recommend that OJP remedy $32,034,623 in unallowable expenditures for building 

sizes in excess of stated need. 

The excessive size of both facilities also creates increased costs for 

operations and maintenance staff, which are significantly funded by the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs (BIA). Due to funding constraints, BIA told us they can only provide 

40 percent of requested funding for tribal corrections officers, which would be about 

25 of the 63 full-time employees needed to fully operate the Tuba City facility and 

20 of the 51 full-time employees needed to fully operate the Kayenta facility. As a 

result, there is an increased risk that the Tuba City and Kayenta facilities will not 

become fully operational due to a lack of funding. 

BJA was responsible for providing oversight of the awarded grants, including 

reviewing semiannual progress reports for each grant and site visits to the 

construction projects. Those progress reports indicated increases in bed space. In 

addition to its own oversight activities, BJA contracted with a technical assistance 

provider to assist it with ensuring that NDPS was implementing the construction 

projects in the most cost effective and efficient manner. Despite these apparent 

oversight efforts, the NDPS built facilities that were at least 250 percent larger than 

needed at an excess cost of $32,034,623. We also found that NDPS does not have 

the resources available to staff facilities of this size. 

Our report contains nine recommendations to OJP. Our audit objective, 

scope, and methodology are discussed in Appendix 1 and our Schedule of 

Dollar-Related Findings appears in Appendix 2. In addition, we requested a 

response to our draft audit report from NDPS and OJP, and their responses are 

shown in Appendix 3 and 4. 

ii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AUDIT OF THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS
 

CORRECTIONAL SYSTEMS AND CORRECTIONAL ALTERNATIVES
 

ON TRIBAL LANDS PROGRAM GRANTS AWARDED TO THE
 

NAVAJO DIVISION OF PUBLIC SAFETY
 

WINDOW ROCK, ARIZONA
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS
 

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................1
 

Audit Approach ...........................................................................................1
 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................3
 

Grant Financial Management.........................................................................3
 

Grant Expenditures......................................................................................3
 

Direct Costs .............................................................................................4
 

Matching Costs .........................................................................................4
 

Budget Management and Control...................................................................5
 

Drawdowns.................................................................................................5
 

Federal Financial Reports..............................................................................6
 

Program Performance and Accomplishments ...................................................7
 

Correctional Facility Planning Grants............................................................7
 

Correctional Facility Construction Grants......................................................8
 

Categorical Assistance Progress Reports .................................................... 13
 

Conclusion................................................................................................ 13
 

Recommendations ..................................................................................... 14
 

APPENDIX 1: OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY ................................... 16
 

APPENDIX 2: SCHEDULE OF DOLLAR-RELATED FINDINGS................................ 17
 

APPENDIX 3: OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS RESPONSE TO 

THE DRAFT REPORT................................................................................. 19
 

APPENDIX 4: NAVAJO NATION RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT.................... 28
 

APPENDIX 5: OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ANALYSIS AND 

SUMMARY OF ACTIONS NECESSARY TO RESOLVE THE REPORT..................... 42
 
This page left intentionally blank. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AUDIT OF THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS
 

CORRECTIONAL SYSTEMS AND CORRECTIONAL ALTERNATIVES
 

ON TRIBAL LANDS PROGRAM GRANTS AWARDED TO THE
 

NAVAJO DIVISION OF PUBLIC SAFETY
 

WINDOW ROCK, ARIZONA
 

INTRODUCTION 

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) 

completed an audit of grants 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 Navajo Division 

of Public Safety (NDPS), a department of the Navajo Nation, in Window Rock, 

Arizona.

1 NDPS was awarded four grants totaling $70,542,837, as shown in 

Table 1. 

Table 1
 

Grants Awarded to NDPS
 

AWARD NUMBER AWARD DATE 

PROJECT 

START DATE 

PROJECT 

END DATE 

AWARD 

AMOUNT 

2008-IP-BX-0036 09/15/08 07/01/08 12/31/14 $150,000 

2009-IP-BX-0074 09/03/09 07/01/09 06/30/13 $150,000 

2009-ST-B9-0089 09/21/09 07/01/09 06/30/14 $38,587,560 

2009-ST-B9-0100 09/21/09 10/01/09 03/31/15 $31,655,277 

Total: $70,542,837 

Source: OJP 

Funding through the CSCATL Program supports efforts related to planning, 

constructing, and renovating tribal justice facilities associated with the 

incarceration and rehabilitation of juvenile and adult offenders subject to tribal 

jurisdiction, including exploring community-based alternatives. In 2010, the 

CSCATL Program was modified to allow the use of funds to construct 

multi-purpose justice centers that combine tribal police, courts, and corrections 

services.2 

Audit Approach 

The objective of this audit was to determine whether costs claimed under 

the grants were allowable, supported, and in accordance with applicable laws, 

regulations, guidelines, and the terms and conditions of the grants. To 

accomplish this objective, we assessed performance in the following areas of 

1 This program was formerly referred to as the Correctional Facilities on Tribal Lands Program. 

2 42 U.S.C. § 13709. 

1
 
 

 

 

 

grant management: financial management, expenditures, budget management 

and control, drawdowns, federal financial reports, and program performance. 

We tested compliance with what we consider to be the most important 

conditions of the grants. The criteria we audited against are contained in the 

OJP Financial Guide and the 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 

NDPS was awarded $70,542,837 under Grant Numbers 2008-IP-BX-0036, 

2009-IP-BX-0074, 2009-ST-B9-0089, and 2009-ST-B9-0100 to plan and 

construct tribal justice facilities associated with the incarceration and 

rehabilitation of adult offenders subject to tribal jurisdiction. The objective of 

Grant Number 2008-IP-BX-0036 was to plan and design a correctional facility in 

Dilkon, Arizona. The objective of Grant Number 2009-IP-BX-0074 was to plan 

and design a new correctional facility in Kayenta, Arizona. Grant Number 

2009-ST-B9-0089 was awarded to build a new correctional facility in Tuba City, 

Arizona. Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0100 was awarded to build a multi-purpose 

justice center in Kayenta, Arizona. 

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 

Single Audit Reports for Navajo Nation for fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013 to 

identify any control weaknesses and significant non-compliance issues related to 

NDPS. We also conducted interviews with financial staff and examined policies and 

procedures to determine whether the grant financial management system NDPS 

uses for the processing and payment of funds adequately safeguards grant funds 

and ensured NDPS complied with the terms and conditions of the grants. The 

Single Audit Reports identified issues with Navajo Nation management of federal 

grants including the potential for Davis-Bacon Act noncompliance; lack of adequate 

monitoring and reconciliation of accountable property, including grant-funded 

property; risk of noncompliance with suspension and debarment requirements; and 

inaccurate reporting. The inaccurate reporting findings were specifically related to 

DOJ grants. 

We identified weaknesses with NDPS management of the audited grants. 

Specifically, the OJP Financial Guide requires grantees to avoid business with 

debarred and suspended organizations. NDPS officials stated they required 

contractors to self-certify that they were not suspended or debarred, but did not 

verify that information. We recommend that OJP ensure that NDPS implements a 

process to verify that recipients of DOJ funds are not suspended or debarred. 

Grant Expenditures 

For Grant Numbers 2008-IP-BX-0036 and 2009-IP-BX-0074, NDPS received 

budget approval for planning costs, including contractual expenditures, and 

matching costs including personnel and fringe benefits. NDPS received budget 

approval for construction and travel costs for Grant Numbers 2009-ST-B9-0089 and 

2009-ST-B9-0100. As discussed below, we tested a judgmental sample of 

transactions from each audited grant to determine whether costs charged to the 

awards were allowable, supported, and properly allocated in compliance with award 

requirements. The following sections describe the results of that testing. 

3
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Direct Costs 

The general ledger for Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089 indicated 

274 transactions totaling $42,290,705. We tested 100 transactions totaling 

$23,544,870 and found 5 unsupported transactions totaling $656,921 and 

22 unallowable transactions totaling $1,906,592.

3 Unallowable transactions 

included $528,082 for court relocation costs, $149,081 for two expenditures from 

another construction project, $666,166 for 19 other non-grant expenditures, and 3 

expenditures totaling $563,262 that were paid or incurred before NDPS received 

environmental clearance from OJP for the project on June 2, 2010.

4 

The general ledger for Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0100 indicated 300 

transactions totaling $33,973,568. We tested 110 transactions totaling 

$25,310,209 and found evidence of 20 unallowable transactions totaling $648,332. 

These transactions were unallowable because they were paid or incurred before 

NDPS received environmental clearance from OJP for the project on June 6, 2011.4 

Matching Costs 

When testing grant expenditures, we also assessed matching expenditures 

applied to the audited grants and determined the accuracy, support, and 

allowability of expenditures with matching funds. To accomplish this we reviewed 

matching requirements for each grant. 

Grant Number 2008-IP-BX-0036 was originally awarded with a 10-percent 

match requirement of $16,669. However, on June 18, 2013, OJP removed the 

match requirement from the grant budget by a Grant Adjustment Notice (GAN). 

Grant Number 2009-IP-BX-0074 was awarded with a 10-percent match 

requirement of $16,669. Based on our review of NDPS accounting records, no 

match was recorded for this grant. NDPS officials stated they requested a waiver of 

the match requirement for the grant, but could not provide OJP approval of the 

waiver. NDPS officials also provided timesheets as support for the matching 

requirement for this grant. However, the timesheets provided did not contain 

sufficient detail regarding dollar amounts, employee names and activity, or 

supervisory approval, to support the match requirement for this grant. We 

determined the additional documentation provided by NDPS was not adequate to 

support the matching requirement for this grant. Therefore, we recommend that 

OJP remedy the $16,669 in matching funds not allocated to the grant project. 

3 Includes three transactions with duplicated questioned costs of $199,176. Those questioned 

costs were duplicated because the transactions included non-grant expenditures and also occurred 

before NDPS received environmental clearance for the project. 

4 Special Condition 9 of the grant award states “the recipient may not obligate, expend, or 

draw down any funds until the program office has verified that the recipient has submitted all 

necessary documentation required to comply with Department of Justice Environmental Impact Review 

Procedures.” 

4
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grant No. 2009-ST-B9-0100 was awarded with a 10-percent match 

requirement of $3,517,253. NDPS accounted for the match requirement by 

allocating 10 percent of each month’s expenditures to the match. At the time of 

this audit, the total match allocation was $2,653,852, which was less than 

10 percent of the $33,973,568 in total expenditures. However, NDPS had until the 

grant end date of March 31, 2015, to satisfy the match requirement. We 

recommend that OJP ensure NDPS meets the match requirement by the end of the 

grant. 

We did not identify any exceptions for Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089. 

Based on our transaction testing, we recommend that OJP remedy $656,921 

in unsupported questioned costs, $2,554,924 in unallowable questioned costs, and 

$16,669 in unallocated matching costs related to expenditures prohibited by grant 

special conditions and non-grant expenditures charged to the OJP grants. 

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. 

For Grant Numbers 2008-IP-BX-0036 and 2009-IP-BX-0074, we compared 

grant expenditures to the approved budgets to determine whether NDPS 

transferred funds among budget categories in excess of 10 percent. We 

determined that the cumulative difference between category expenditures and 

approved budget category totals was not greater than 10 percent. 

Since Grant Numbers 2009-ST-B9-0089 and 2009-ST-B9-0100 were 

designated as construction grants, we determined that the NDPS was required to 

follow 28 CFR 66.30(c). According to 28 CFR 66.30(c), construction grants to state 

and local governments do not require grantees to request approval for any 

deviations from the budget unless additional grant funds are necessary. As a 

result, we found that the 10-percent rule does not apply. 

Drawdowns 

According to the OJP Financial Guide, an adequate accounting system should 

be established to maintain documentation to support all receipts of federal funds. 

If, at the end of the grant award, recipients have drawn down funds in excess of 

federal expenditures, unused funds must be returned to the awarding agency. 

NDPS made drawdowns as reimbursements, but did not appear to make drawdowns 

using a schedule or any specific methodology. To assess whether NDPS managed 

grant receipts in accordance with federal requirements, we compared the total 

amount reimbursed to the total expenditures in the accounting records. As shown 

5
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

in Table 2, at the time of the last drawdown, total drawdowns did not exceed total 

expenditures for any of the four grants. 

Table 2
 

Drawdowns by Grant
 

AWARD NUMBER 

AWARD 

AMOUNT 

DATE OF 

LAST 

DRAWDOWN 

TOTAL 

DRAWDOWNS5 

TOTAL GRANT 

EXPENDITURES6 

FUNDS NOT 

DRAWN DOWN 

2008-IP-BX-0036 $150,000 12/24/13 $27,839 $37,459 $122,161 

2009-IP-BX-0074 $150,000 10/03/13 $149,736 $149,736 $264 

2009-ST-B9-0089 $38,587,560 10/03/14 $38,061,635 $38,061,635 $525,925 

2009-ST-B9-0100 $31,655,277 04/22/14 $27,340,590 $28,241,748 $4,314,687 

Total: $65,579,800 $66,490,578 $4,963,037 

Source: OJP and NDPS 

As shown in Table 2, for three of the four grants, the NDPS had not drawn 

down grant funds within 90 days of the grant expiration date as required by the OJP 

Financial Guide. Specifically, for Grant Number 2008-IP-BX-0036, $122,161 of the 

$150,000 grant was not drawn down as of January 20, 2015, despite a grant end 

date of December 31, 2014. NDPS had 90 days after the grant end date to draw 

down funds, and OJP provided documentation of NDPS drawdowns of $109,363 on 

March 6, 2015, and $3,178 on April 1, 2015; an unobligated balance of $9,620 

remained. For Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089, $525,925 in unobligated grant 

funds remained as of January 20, 2015, despite a grant end date of June 30, 2014. 

We recommend that OJP remedy the $535,545 in funds to better use for Grant 

Numbers 2008-IP-BX-0036 and 2009-ST-B9-0089. 

Federal Financial Reports 

According to the OJP Financial Guide, recipients shall report the actual 

expenditures and unliquidated obligations incurred for the reporting period on each 

financial report. To determine whether Federal Financial Reports (FFR) submitted 

by NDPS were accurate, we compared the four most recent reports to NDPS 

accounting records for each grant. 

5 Total drawdowns as of January 20, 2015. 

6 Total expenditures as of date of last drawdown. 

6
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3
 

FFR Analysis
 

REPORT 

NUMBER 

REPORT 

PERIOD 

FROM 

DATES 

REPORT 

PERIOD 

TO DATES 

PERIODIC 

EXPENDITURES 

PER FFR 

CUMULATIVE 

EXPENDITURES 

PER FFR 

CUMULATIVE 

EXPENDITURES 

PER 

ACCOUNTING 

RECORDS 

CUMULATIVE 

DIFFERENCE 

2008-IP-BX-0036 

23 01/01/14 03/31/14 $0 $27,839 $37,459 $9,620 

24 04/01/14 06/30/14 $0 $27,839 $37,459 $9,620 

25 07/01/14 09/30/14 $0 $27,839 $37,459 $9,620 

26 10/01/14 12/31/14 $0 $27,839 $146,822 $118,983 

2009-IP-BX-0074 

13 07/01/12 09/30/12 $19,974 $138,074 $138,074 $0 

14 10/01/12 12/31/12 $4,971 $143,045 $143,045 $0 

15 01/01/13 03/31/13 $4,034 $147,079 $147,079 $0 

16 04/01/13 06/30/13 $2,658 $149,736 $149,736 $0 

2009-ST-B9-0089 

17 07/01/13 09/30/13 $12,162 $34,076,927 $36,096,382 $2,019,456 

18 10/01/13 12/31/13 $1,831,956 $35,908,882 $36,096,382 $187,500 

19 01/01/14 03/31/14 $0 $35,908,882 $36,096,382 $187,500 

20 04/01/14 06/30/14 $2,152,752 $38,061,635 $36,371,661 ($1,689,974) 

2009-ST-B9-0100 

17 10/01/13 12/31/13 $3,143,164 $21,867,162 $24,971,770 $3,104,608 

18 01/01/14 03/31/14 $5,473,428 $27,340,590 $28,241,748 $901,158 

19 04/01/14 06/30/14 $580,136 $27,920,726 $30,096,923 $2,176,197 

20 07/01/14 09/30/14 $247,697 $28,168,423 $30,344,619 $2,176,197 

Source: OJP and NDPS 

For three of the four grants, none of the four most recent FFRs were accurate 

to Navajo Nation accounting records. For Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089, the 

cumulative difference appeared to be due to timing, as there were subsequent 

general ledger entries that matched the shortage amount. For Grant Numbers 

2008-IP-BX-0036 and 2009-ST-B9-0100, the discrepancies between the FFRs and 

accounting records did not appear to be due to timing, as we were unable to 

identify nearby expenditures in the accounting records that would offset the 

discrepancies. However, we did note that at the end of each fiscal year, Navajo 

Nation’s financial department frequently used adjusting entries to move expenses 

into the following fiscal year, which could have an effect on data provided for the 

FFR periods immediately before and after the fiscal year end date.

7 We recommend 

that OJP ensure that NDPS implements a process to submit FFRs that accurately 

reflect expenditures for each reporting period. 

Program Performance and Accomplishments 

Correctional Facility Planning Grants 

Grant Number 2008-IP-BX-0036, in the amount of $150,000, was awarded 

to NDPS on September 15, 2008, to plan and design a correctional facility in
 

7 Navajo Nation’s fiscal year ends September 30. 

7
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuba City, Arizona. Grant Number 2009-IP-BX-0074, in the amount of $150,000, 

was awarded on September 3, 2009, to plan and design a correctional facility in 

Kayenta, Arizona. 

For Grant Number 2008-IP-BX-0036, NDPS subsequently requested and 

received a GAN to repurpose this grant to plan a correctional facility in Dilkon, 

Arizona, because Navajo Nation had recently completed a master plan for the 

Tuba City facility. That master plan, dated March 2007, was completed prior to the 

award of both planning grants and provided details for 13 judicial/public safety 

facilities across the Navajo Nation, including correctional square footages, specific 

rooms and work areas, prototype layouts, number of jail beds needed, and project 

budgets. The March 2007 master plan included facilities in Tuba City, Dilkon, and 

Kayenta. Because the NDPS already had a master plan in place for the correctional 

facilities in Tuba City, Dilkon, and Kayenta, in our opinion the 2008 and 2009 

planning grants awarded to NDPS for the development of master plans for these 

facilities were unnecessary. Therefore, in addition to the $9,620 previously 

questioned as funds to better use, we are questioning the total amount of $140,380 

drawn down for Grant Number 2008-IP-BX-0036, and the total amount of $149,736 

drawn down for Grant Number 2009-IP-BX-0074 as unallowable. We recommend 

that OJP remedy $290,116 in unallowable expenditures for unnecessary planning 

grants. 

Correctional Facility Construction Grants 

Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089, in the amount of $38,587,560, was 

awarded to NDPS on September 21, 2009, to fund construction of a new 

correctional facility in Tuba City, Arizona, which replaced the existing jail. Grant 

Number 2009-ST-B9-0100, in the amount of $31,655,277, was also awarded to 

NDPS on September 21, 2009, to fund construction of a new multi-purpose justice 

center in Kayenta, Arizona, to replace the existing jail. 

According to Navajo Nation’s Operational and Space Program (Program) for 

the new Tuba City facility, the existing jail had a maximum capacity of 34 people 

from 2004 to 2009.8 The Program stated that on average, 18 adult arrests and 

1 juvenile arrest were made per day in 2009, although law enforcement officers 

were reluctant to make arrests due to jail space limitations. It also identified a 

significant decrease in calls for service from 2005 to 2008.9 According to BIA data, 

monthly jail occupancy reported for Tuba City from 2008 through 2014 ranged from 

a low of 2 in October 2014, to a high of 49 in July 2010; from 2008 to 2014, 

average monthly occupancy ranged between 14 and 22 inmates.10 Navajo Nation’s 

8 Navajo Nation Large District Justice Center Operation and Space Program, Tuba City, AZ, 

October 1, 2009 (updated March 14, 2011). 

9 For calls to the Tuba City police dispatch for any type of complaint, there was a 54-percent 

decrease from 2005 to 2007, offset slightly by a 9-percent increase in service calls from 2007 to 2008. 

10 Occupancy counts represent total inmates confined within a calendar month. Daily 

occupancy rates were not provided. 

8
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

March 2007 master plan stated the new Tuba City facility should follow the “Large 

District Judicial/Public Safety Facilities Prototype Space Program,” which planned for 

a 107,036 square foot (SF) multipurpose facility that included corrections, court, 

law enforcement, and peacemaking spaces, including 48 inmate beds. 

As shown in Table 4, the March 2007 master plan stated an anticipated total 

project budget of $36,927,253 for a 107,036 SF multipurpose facility at Tuba City. 

After construction, the judicial, law enforcement, and peacemaking spaces were 

built 2,724 SF smaller than needed per the master plan, and $2,626,711 less than 

budgeted.

11 However, the corrections space was expanded from 52,790 SF to 

87,709 SF, inmate beds increased from 48 to 132, and the corrections space cost 

increased by $25,398,705. 

Table 4
 

Tuba City Justice Center—Planned Size vs. Built Size
 

FUNCTIONAL 

AREA 

SIZE PER 

MASTER 

PLAN (SF) 

ACTUAL 

SIZE (SF) 

DIFFERENCE 

(SF) 

COST PER 

MASTER PLAN12 ACTUAL COST DIFFERENCE 

Corrections13 52,79014 87,709 34,919 $18,212,326 $43,611,031 $25,398,705 

Courts/Law 

Enforcement 54,246 51,522 (2,724) $18,714,927 $16,088,216 ($2,626,711) 

Total: 107,036 139,231 32,195 $36,927,253 $59,599,247 $22,771,994 

Source: NDPS 

In its grant application, NDPS applied for the Tuba City construction grant 

based upon the total facility sizes, functions, and budgets stated in its March 2007 

master plan. The Tuba City application stated NDPS intended to build a 111,848 SF 

facility that increased the number of jail beds. NDPS then built the court and law 

enforcement buildings using a bank loan, and funded the correctional facility 

through Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089. However, rather than follow the March 

2007 master plan, which allocated about $18,212,326 to build a 48-bed corrections 

space, the NDPS built a 132-bed corrections facility with the $38,587,560 grant. 

From February 2010 to February 2014, NDPS submitted progress reports to OJP 

11 Construction of the Tuba City judicial, law enforcement, and peacemaking functional areas 

was funded by a bank loan and not funded by Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089. 

12 Calculated at $345 per square foot using data provided in the NDPS March 2007 master 

plan. 

13 The March 2007 master plan indicated that correctional spaces and shared building 

functions were budgeted at $19,872,633, and the entire facility (correctional, court, law enforcement, 

and peacekeeping space) was budgeted at $38,587,560 for a 111,848 SF facility; however, 

$1,660,307 was budgeted twice for 4,813 SF of building entrance and lobby spaces, resulting in an 

actual budget of $18,212,326 for Tuba City’s correctional spaces and $36,927,253 for the entire 

facility. 

14 Total includes 26,346 square feet of jail space and 31,256 square feet of building space 

shared by all functional areas (building entrances, lobbies, conference rooms, staff areas, visitation 

space, and building infrastructure spaces); we determined these spaces to be integral to the building 

and therefore inseparable from the Corrections functional area. The total also accounts for the 4,813 

SF of duplicated spaces discussed above. 

9
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

that referenced the March 2007 master plan, but gradually increased the 

corrections component from 48 beds, to 62 beds, to 132 beds. Neither OJP nor 

NDPS officials could provide us with documentation approving a change in size for 

the Tuba City corrections building. NDPS grant records included documents that 

stated the corrections building size was increased due to receipt of the grant. As a 

result, based on the needs stated in NDPS March 2007 master plan and the facility 

that was actually constructed, we are questioning $20,375,234 related to the 

larger-than-planned building constructed under Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089.

15 

Kayenta’s existing jail had two cells that could hold up to 30 people. A March 

2012 Navajo Nation report stated that the Kayenta district’s population decreased 

by 4.4 percent from 2000 to 2010, and calls for service decreased by an average 

annual rate of 7.2 percent from 2006 to 2010. According to BIA data, monthly jail 

occupancy reported for Kayenta from 2008 through 2014 ranged from a low of 0 in 

September and October 2011, to a high of 24 in December 2011; from 2008 to 

2014, average monthly occupancy ranged between 7 and 11 inmates.16 Navajo 

Nation’s March 2007 master plan stated the new Kayenta facility should follow the 

“Medium District Judicial/Public Safety Facilities Prototype Space Program,” which 

planned for an 86,224 SF multipurpose facility that included corrections, court, law 

enforcement, and peacemaking spaces, including 32 inmate beds. 

As shown in Table 5, the March 2007 master plan stated a total project 

budget of $29,747,112 for an 86,224 SF multipurpose facility at Kayenta. Judicial 

and peacemaking spaces were planned at 28,625 SF but were not built. Law 

enforcement spaces were planned at 10,232 SF, but 13,427 SF was built for law 

enforcement use, which was 3,195 SF more than needed per the master plan and 

cost $2,420,197 more than budgeted in the master plan. The corrections space 

was expanded from 47,727 SF to 54,455 SF, and inmate beds increased from 32 to 

80. NDPS built a larger correctional space at Kayenta than the master plan stated 

was needed, which increased the size of the corrections function by 6,728 SF and 

increased its cost by $8,404,192. 

15 The March 2007 master plan indicated that correctional spaces and shared building 

functions were budgeted at $18,212,326; subtracting that amount from the grant award of 

$38,587,560 results in an unallowable cost of $20,375,234 that was used to build a larger than 

planned facility. 

16 Occupancy counts represent total inmates confined within a calendar month. Daily 

occupancy rates were not provided. 

10
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5
 

Kayenta Justice Center—Planned Size vs. Built Size
 

FUNCTIONAL 

AREA 

SIZE PER 

MASTER 

PLAN 

ACTUAL 

SIZE 

(SF) DIFFERENCE 

COST PER 

MASTER PLAN17 ACTUAL COST DIFFERENCE 

Corrections18 47,72719 54,455 6,728 $16,465,885 $24,870,077 $8,404,192 

Law 

Enforcement 10,232 13,427 3,195 $3,530,002 $5,950,199 $2,420,197 

Courts/ 

Peacemaking 28,265 -20 (28,265) $9,751,225 - ($9,751,225) 

Total: 86,224 67,882 (18,342)21 $29,747,112 $30,820,276 $1,073,164 

Source: NDPS 

Similarly, in its grant application, NDPS indicated that it was using the March 

2007 master plan, which stated a need for a 32-bed facility in Kayenta. However, 

the application also stated the project would provide 60 new beds. Rather than 

follow the March 2007 master plan for the Kayenta facility, which allocated about 

$19,995,888 to build a 32-bed corrections space and law enforcement areas, NDPS 

built an 80-bed corrections building and a police station with the $31,655,277 

grant. NDPS officials stated the increased correctional facility size was due to a 

planning study completed on March 27, 2012. However, that planning study was 

completed two and a half years after the Kayenta construction grant was awarded, 

5 and 11 months after the start of site grading and construction management, 

respectively, and over a year after NDPS started the re-design of the corrections 

facility to 80 adult beds in January 2011. Neither OJP nor NDPS officials could 

provide us with documentation approving a change in adult bed space for the 

Kayenta corrections building. As a result, based on the needs stated in the March 

2007 master plan and the facility that was actually constructed, we are questioning 

17 Calculated at $345 per square foot using data provided in the NDPS March 2007 master 

plan. 

18 The March 2007 master plan indicated that correctional spaces, law enforcement spaces, 

and shared building functions were budgeted at $21,656,195, and the entire facility (correctional, 

court, law enforcement, and peacekeeping space) was budgeted at $31,407,420 for a 91,036 SF 

facility; however, $1,660,308 was budgeted twice for 4,813 SF of building entrance and lobby spaces, 

resulting in an actual budget of $19,995,888 for Kayenta’s correctional and law enforcement spaces 

and $29,747,112 for the entire facility. 

19 Amount includes 23,759 square feet of jail space and 28,781 square feet of building space 

shared by all functional areas (building entrances, lobbies, conference rooms, staff areas, visitation 

space, and building infrastructure spaces); we determined these spaces to be integral to the building 

and therefore inseparable from the Corrections functional area. The total also accounts for the 4,813 

SF of duplicated spaces discussed above. 

20 Corrections, court and law enforcement spaces were specified in the March 2007 master 

plan, but only corrections and law enforcement spaces were built at Kayenta. 

21 Differences in the total amounts in the tables in the report are due to rounding. The sum 

of individual numbers prior to rounding may differ from the sum of the individual numbers rounded. 

11
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$11,659,389 related to the larger than planned building constructed under Grant 

Number 2009-ST-B9-0100.22 

When we informed NDPS officials of our findings related to the excessive 

building sizes at Tuba City and Kayenta, they provided us with a 2005 NDPS 

Department of Corrections comprehensive plan that stated Tuba City needed 

152 adult beds and space for 24 juveniles, and Kayenta needed 104 adult beds and 

space for 24 juveniles. However, that plan also provided options to close the Tuba 

City jail and lease bed space at other correctional facilities, or to use a 16-bed 

modular facility at Tuba City and the same at Kayenta. Additionally, NDPS officials 

told us that the Navajo Nation tribal council thought the building sizes stated in the 

2005 plan were too large, which led to creation of the March 2007 master plan that 

was used to build NDPS justice centers and to apply for the construction grants. 

We reviewed the additional documentation and determined it was not related to the 

construction grants, as the applications and progress reports for each grant only 

referenced the March 2007 master plan. Overall, for these construction grants we 

recommend that OJP remedy $32,034,623 in unallowable expenditures for building 

sizes in excess of stated need. 

The excessive size of both facilities will also create increased costs for 

operations and maintenance staff, which are significantly funded by the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs (BIA). At the time of this audit, the Tuba City facility had staff to 

support 2 housing units and NDPS officials stated they needed to hire 16 more 

people before another housing unit could be staffed. The March 2007 master plan 

stated a need for eight corrections staff at each facility. An August 2010 OJP site 

visit report stated that Tuba City had 12 correctional officers for its existing jail, and 

planned to hire 51 additional officers when the new facility was completed. BIA 

officials stated they expressed concerns to the BJA and Navajo Nation officials 

regarding the large size of the Tuba City correctional facility, but BJA did not object 

to the size and Navajo Nation stated it was part of the Navajo Nation’s master plan. 

Additionally, a February 2012 OJP site visit report stated that Kayenta had 

8 correctional officers and 1 supervisor for its existing jail, and would need a total of 

51 full-time employees when the new facility was completed. BIA officials stated 

they had concerns about staffing for the Kayenta correctional facility, because the 

Kayenta district does not have the population to support the jail size. BIA stated 

they had suggested to the BJA Crownpoint and Shiprock as alternative locations to 

build facilities to house Kayenta inmates.23 Currently, due to funding constraints, 

BIA can only provide 40 percent of requested funding for tribal corrections officers, 

which would be about 25 of the 63 full-time employees stated for Tuba City and 

22 The March 2007 master plan indicated that correctional spaces, law enforcement spaces, 

and shared building functions were budgeted at $19,995,888; subtracting that amount from the grant 

award of $31,655,277 results in an unallowable cost of $11,659,389 that was used to build a larger 

than planned facility. 

23 Construction of a correctional facility funded by the Navajo Nation and BIA was completed 

in Crownpoint in 2013 and a new correctional facility is planned for Shiprock starting in 2016. 

12
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20 of the 51 full-time employees stated for Kayenta in the OJP site visit reports. As 

a result, there is an increased risk that the Tuba City and Kayenta facilities will not 

become fully operational due to a lack of funding. 

While we determined that NDPS constructed the Tuba City and Kayenta 

correctional facilities in excess of need, as documented in the March 2007 master 

plan, we also noted that BJA was responsible for providing oversight of the grant 

funding for those construction projects. BJA possessed a copy of the March 2007 

master plan and conducted site visits of the Tuba City and Kayenta correctional 

facility projects in 2010 and 2012. BJA also contracted with Alpha Corporation & 

Engineering (Alpha Corp) to provide technical assistance services to assist BJA with 

ensuring that grantees were implementing projects in the most cost effective and 

efficient manner and meeting proposed projects timelines. Alpha Corp was required 

to provide quarterly reports to BJA about projects it assisted. For the Tuba City and 

Kayenta projects, Alpha Corp provided direct technical assistance to NDPS, by 

phone and with site visits. Additionally, BJA received semiannual progress reports 

from NDPS for each project. As previously noted, those progress reports indicated 

increases in bed space. We also learned during this audit that NDPS does not have 

the resources available to staff facilities of this size. BJA was therefore in 

possession of information that allowed for comprehensive oversight, yet the 

construction projects still resulted in significant excess capacity and questionable 

use of grant funds.24 

Categorical Assistance Progress Reports 

According to the OJP Financial Guide, progress reports are prepared twice a 

year and are used to describe performance of activities or the accomplishment of 

objectives as set forth in the award application. Progress reports must be 

submitted within 30 days of the end of the reporting periods, which are June 30 and 

December 31. Therefore, progress reports are due semi-annually on January 30 

and July 30 for the life of the award. 

To determine whether the progress reports submitted by the NDPS 

accurately reflected the activity of the grants, we performed testing of some of the 

accomplishments described in the last two Categorical Assistance Progress Reports 

for each grant. We did not identify significant discrepancies with accomplishments 

described in the progress reports. 

Conclusion 

The objective of this audit was to determine whether costs claimed under the 

grants were allowable, supported, and in accordance with applicable laws, 

regulations, guidelines, and terms and conditions. We examined NDPS accounting 

records, budget documents, financial and progress reports, and financial 

management procedures. We found that NDPS had internal control weaknesses 

24 We intend to discuss the matter of BJA monitoring of grantees in a separate, forthcoming 

audit report assessing related oversight activities by OJP and BJA. 

13
 
 

 

 

related to suspension and debarment checks, incurred $656,921 in unsupported 

costs and $2,554,924 in unallowable costs, did not meet the $16,669 match 

requirement for one grant, did not expend $535,545 in awarded funds, did not 

submit accurate Federal Financial Reports for three of the four grants, expended 

$290,116 for two unnecessary planning grants, and expended $32,034,623 with 

grant funds to build correctional facilities with capacities that were at least 

250-percent larger than planned. 

We made nine recommendations to improve NDPS management of awards. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that OJP: 

1.	 Ensure that NDPS implements a process to verify that recipients of DOJ funds 

are not suspended or debarred. 

2.	 Remedy $656,921 in unsupported questioned costs for Grant Number 

2009-ST-B9-0089.
 

3.	 Remedy $2,554,924 in unallowable questioned costs associated with the 

following issues: 

a.	 Remedy $528,082 in grant reimbursements expended on court relocation 

costs charged to Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089. 

b. Remedy $815,248 in grant reimbursements for non-grant expenditures 

charged to Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089. 

c.	 Remedy $563,262 in grant reimbursements for expenditures that 

occurred prior to environmental clearance for Grant Number 

2009-ST-B9-0089. 

d. Remedy $648,332 in grant reimbursements for expenditures that 

occurred prior to environmental clearance for Grant Number 

2009-ST-B9-0100. 

4.	 Remedy $16,669 in unallocated matching costs for Grant Number 

2009-IP-BX-0074.
 

5.	 Ensure NDPS meets the match requirement for Grant Number 

2009-ST-B9-0100 by the end of the grant.
 

6.	 Remedy $535,545 in funds to better use associated with unexpended grant 

funds: 

a.	 Remedy $9,620 in funds to better use for Grant Number 

2008-IP-BX-0036
 

14
 
 

b. Remedy $525,925 in funds to better use for Grant Number 

2009-ST-B9-0089.
 

7.	 Ensure that NDPS implements a process to submit FFRs that accurately 

reflect expenditures for each reporting period. 

8.	 Remedy $290,116 in unallowable expenditures associated with unnecessary 

planning grants: 

a.	 Remedy $140,380 for Grant Number 2008-IP-BX-0036. 

b. Remedy $149,736 for Grant Number 2009-IP-BX-0074. 

9.	 Remedy $32,034,623 in unallowable expenditures associated with excessive 

building sizes: 

a.	 Remedy $20,375,234 for Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089. 

b. Remedy $11,659,389 for Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0100. 

15
 
This page left intentionally blank. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX 1 

OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY 

The objective of this audit was to determine whether costs claimed under 

the grants were allowable, supported, and in accordance with applicable laws, 

regulations, guidelines, and terms and conditions of the grants. 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), grants awarded to the Navajo Division of Public Safety (NDPS) 

under the Correctional Systems and Correctional Alternatives on Tribal Lands 

(CSCATL) Program. NDPS was awarded $70,542,837 under Grant Numbers 

2008-IP-BX-0036, 2009-IP-BX-0074, 2009-ST-B9-0089, and 2009-ST-B9-0100. 

Our audit concentrated on, but was not limited to September 15, 2008, the award 

date for Grant Number 2008-IP-BX-0036, through February 13, 2015, the last day 

of our fieldwork. At the time of our audit, Grant Numbers 2008-IP-BX-0036, 

2009-IP-BX-0074, and 2009-ST-B9-0089 were ended, but none of the grants were 

fully drawn down. 

To accomplish our objective, we tested compliance with what we consider to 

be the most important conditions of NDPS activities related to the audited grants. 

We performed sample-based audit testing for grant expenditures, financial reports, 

and progress reports. In this effort, we employed a judgmental sampling design to 

obtain broad exposure to numerous facets of the grant reviewed, such as unique 

payroll and fringe benefits adjustments throughout the year. This non-statistical 

sample design did not allow projection of the test results to the universe from which 

the samples were selected. Unless otherwise stated in our report, the criteria we 

audit against are contained in the OJP Financial Guide and the award documents. 

In addition, we evaluated NDPS (1) grant financial management, including 

grant-related procedures in place for financial status reports, progress reports, 

procurement, and contractor monitoring; (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 NDPS 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. Any findings related to information received from those 

systems were verified with documentation from other sources. 

16
 
This page left intentionally blank. 
QUESTIONED COSTS25 AMOUNT PAGE 

Unsupported Costs 

Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089 $656,921 

Total Unsupported Costs $656,921 

Unallocated Matching Costs 

Grant Number 2009-IP-BX-0074 $16,669 

Total Unallocated Matching Costs $16,669 

 Less Duplicative Costs26 

GROSS QUESTIONED COSTS $35,553,253 

$199,176 

NET QUESTIONED COSTS $35,354,077 

 

 

 

APPENDIX 2 

SCHEDULE OF DOLLAR-RELATED FINDINGS 

Unallowable Costs 

Court Relocation Costs $528,082 4 

Non-Grant Expenditures 815,248 4 

Non-Compliance with Special Condition 9 (Grant 

Number 2009-ST-B9-0089) 563,262 4 

Non-Compliance with Special Condition 9 (Grant 

Number 2009-ST-B9-0100) 648,332 4 

Unnecessary Grant (Grant Number 2008-IP-BX-0036) 140,380 8 

Unnecessary Grant (Grant Number 2009-IP-BX-0074) 149,736 8 

Excessive Building Size (Tuba City) 20,375,234 10 

Excessive Building Size (Kayenta) 11,659,389 11 

Total Unallowable Costs $34,879,663 

4 

4 

4 

25 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. 

26 Some costs were questioned for more than one reason. Net questioned costs exclude the 

duplicate amount, which include three transactions for non-grant expenditures that also occurred 

before environmental clearance was received for Grant No. 2009-ST-B9-0089. 

17
 
Funds to Better Use 

Grant Number 2008-IP-BX-0036 

Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089 

Total Funds to Better Use 

$9,620 

525,925 

$535,545 

6 

6 

TOTAL DOLLAR RELATED FINDINGS $35,889,622 

18
 
 

 

APPENDIX 3 

OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS 

RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT27 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Audit, Assessment, and Managemenl 

w",hl"il/". o c. 205J I 

AUG 24 201\ 

MEMORANDUM TO: David M. Sheeren 

Rt:gional Audit Manager 

Denver Regional Audit Office 

Office of the Inspector General 

FROM: RalphE~ __ ' 

Dj~ 

SUBJECT: Response to the Draft Audit RefXlrt. Audit oflhe Office of Justice 

Programs, Correctional Systems and Correctional Allernalives on 

Tribal Lands Program, Grants Awarded 10 the Navajo Divi~ion of 

Public Safety, Window Rock, Arizona 

nus memorandum is in reference to your corresrondence, dated June 16, 2015, transmitting the 

above-referenced draft audit refXlrt for the Navajo Division of Public Safety (NDPS), a 

department of the Navajo Nation, in Window Rock, Arizona. We consider the subject report 

resolved and request writtcn acceptance of this action from your office. 

The draft report contains nine recommendations and $35,354,077' in net questioned costs, and 

$535,545 in funds to better use. The following is the Office of Justice Programs' (OJP) analysis 

of the draft audit report recommendations. For ease of review, the recommendations are restated 

in bold and are followed by our response. 

1. We recommend that OJP ensure that JliDPS implements a process to verify that 

recipients of DOJ fund s are not suspended or debarred. 

OJP agrees with the recommendation. However, NDPS also provided OlP with a copy of 

its July 20, 2015 response to the draft audit report. In its response, NDPS provided a copy 

of written procedures implemented to enSLlre that recipient~ of U.S. Department of 

Justice (DOJ) funds are not suspended or debarred (see Attachment I). These procedures 

appear to sufficiently address the recommendation. Accordingly, the Oflice of Justice 

Programs requests closure of this recommendation. 

J Some ccsts were questioned for more than one reason. Net questioned COSIS exclude the duplicate amounts. 

27 Attachments to this response were not included in this final report. 

19
 
2. We recommend that O.JP remedy the $656,921 in unsupported questioned costs for 

Grant Number 2009-ST~89-0089. 

OJP agrees with the recommendation. We will coordinate with NDP$ to remedy thc 

$656,921 in questioned co~ts, related to unsupported direct expenditures that were charged 

to Grant Number 2009-ST -89-0089. 

3. We recommend that OJP remedy the $2,554,924 in unallowable questioned costs 

associated with the following issues: 

a. $528,082 in grant reimbursements expended on court relocation costs charged 

to Grant Number 2009-ST-89-0089. 

OJP agrees with this part of the re<:ommendation. We will coordinate with NDPS 

to remedy the $528,082 in questioned costs, related to court relocation 

expenditures that were charged to Grant Number 2009-8T-B9-0089. 

b. 5815)48 in grant reimbursements for non-grant expenditures charged to 

Grant Number 2009-ST-89-0089. 

OJP agrees with this part of the recommendation. We will coordinate with NDPS 

to remedy the $815,248 in que~1 oned costs, related to non-grant expenditures that 

were charged to Grant Number 2009-8T -B9-0089. 

c. $563)62 in grant reimburscments for expenditures that occurred prior 10 

environmental clearance for Grant Number 2009-8T ·89-0089. 

OJP agrce~ with this part of the recommendation. We wi!! coordinate with NDP8 

to remedy the $563,262 in questioned costs, related to grant reimbursemenL~ for 

expenditures that occurred prior to removal of the environmental clearance special 

condition under Grant Number 

2009·8T·89-0089. 

d. $648,332 in grant reimbursements for expenditures that occurred prior to 

environmental clearance for G rant Number 2009·ST-K9..o100. 

OJP agrees with this part of the recommendation. We will coordinate with NDPS 

to remedy the $648,332 in questioned costs, related to grant reimbursements for 

expenditures that occurred prior to removal of the environmental clearance special 

condition under Grant Number 2009-8T·B9·0100. 

4. We recommend that O.rr remedy the $16,669 in unallocated matching costs for 

Grant Number 2009-IP-8X-0074. 

OJP agrees with the recommendation. We will coordinate with NDPS to remedy the 

$[6,669 in unallocated matching costs charged to Omnt Number2009·IP-BX-0074. 

2 

20
 
5. We recommend that OJP ensure that NI)PS meets the match requirement for Grant 

Number 2009-8T-89-0100 by tbe end of the grant. 

OJP agrees with the recommendation. We will coordinate with NOP8 10 ensure that the 

matching requirements, under Grant Number 2009·81'-89-0100. arc met by the end oflhe 

award period. 

6. We recommcnd that OJP remedy the $535,545 in funds to better use as.~uciated with 

unexpended grant funds: 

a. Rcmedy $9,620 in funds to better use for Grant Number 2008-tP-8X-0036. 

OJP agrees with this part of the recommendation. On June 17, 2015, OJP 

deobtigated the " 9,620 in undrawn granl funds that had expired for Grant Nrunber 

2008-IP-BX-0036 (see Attachment 2). 

b. Remedy $525,925 in funds to better use for Grant Number 2009-8T-89-0089. 

OJP agrees with this part of the recom.mendation. On June 23, 2015, OJP 

deobligated the $525,925 in undrawn grant funds that had expire<! for Grant 

Number 2oo9-8T-89-0089 (see Attachmenl 2)_ 

Accordingly, the Office of Justice Programs requests closure of this recommendation. 

7. We recommend that OJP ensure that NDPS implements a process to submit Federal 

Financial Reports (FFRs) that accurately reflect expenditures for each reporting 

period. 

OJP agrees with the recommendation. However, NDPS also provided OJP with a copy of 

its July 20, 2015 response to the draft audit report. In its response, NDPS provided a copy 

of written policies and procedures implemented to ensure that future Federal Financial 

Reports accurately reflect expenditures for the reporting (see Attachment 1). These 

procedures appear to sufficicutly address the recommendation. Accordingly, the Office of 

Justice Programs requests closure ofthis recommendation. 

3 

21
 
8. We recommend tbat OJP remedy tbe $290,116 in unallowable expenditures 

associated with unlleeessary planning grants: 

a. Remedy S140.380 for Grant Number 2008-IP-8X-0036. 

b. Remedy S149,736 for Grant Number 2009-IP-BX-0074. 

OJP respectfully disagrees with all parts of the recommendation, and does not 

believe these grants were unnecessary. OJP's Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) 

performed another review of the applications that the Navajo Nation submitted, 

under the Corre<:tionai Systems and Correctional Alternatives on Tribal Lands 

(CSCATL) Program solicitations, and dctermined that thc Navajo Nation provided 

an outlinc to comprehensively plan for regional colTtttional facilities, specifically 

in Tuba City, Arizona, and Kayenta, Ari)'J)na. BJA made the awards for this 

planning activity, through Grant Numbers 2008-IP-BX-0036 and 

2009-1P-8X-0074, respectively, in the amount 0[$150,000 each. 8JA found that 

there was no mention in these applications that the Navajo Nation had produced a 

reservation-wide Public Safety Facilities Master Plan in 2007 (Master Plan), as 

stated in the draft audit report. DJA further determine<! that the Master Plan 

provided an overall vision for correctional services throughout the Navajo Nation. 

BJA stated that the Master Plan made recommendations and provided prototypes 

for the types of facilities and services that would best address {he needs for the 

various judicial districts across the reservation. 

However, BJA dctermined that Master Plan did not eliminate the need for planning 

activities for site-specific construction. The plmming, to be completed through 

Grant Numbers 2008-JI>-8X-0036 and 2009-IP-BX-0074, was specific to the Tuba 

City (later Dilkon, Arizona) and Kayenta facilities. These plans wcre developed to 

review the needs and modify the Master Plan prototypes specific to each location 

and facility. As funding became available for construction of these facilities, 

through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act CARRA), the specific scope 

of each award was modified. The revised scope of activities for each grant was 

allowable, under the parameters provided through the CSCATL Program 

solicitations. Accordingly, the Office of Justice Programs rcspeetfully requests 

closure of the questioned costs associated with this recommendation. 

4 

22
 
9. We recommend that OJP remedy the $32,034,623 ill unallowable expenditures 

associated with excessive building sb:es: 

a. Remedy $20,375,234 for Grant Number 2009-8T-R9-0089. 

b. Remedy Sll,659,389 for Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0100. 

Dl P agrees in part with the recommendation, and docs not believe that there were 

unallowable expenditures associated with excessive building sizes. BJA 

performed another review orthe appl ications submitted by the Navajo Nation to 

construct the 118.848 square foot multi-purpose justice center in Tuba City, 

Ari7..Dna, and the 91,036 square foot detention center in Kayenta, Arizona. BlA 

made these awards, in the amounts of $38,587,560 under Grant Nwnber 

2009-ST -89-0089 for the Tuba City project; and $31 ,655,277 under Grant Nwnber 

2009-ST -B9-0 100 for the Kayenta project. The applications, which were pct..T 

reviewed, detailed the Navajo Nation's need for new facilities on the reservation. 

As early as June 2010, BlA noticed that several grant-related documents for the 

Tuba City Project, under Grant Number 2009-ST -139-0089, used different 

terminology in referring to capacity of the multi-purpose justice center. 

Specifically, the semi-annual progress reports, the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) documentation, and reports submitted by the Alpha Corporation 

(Alpha), BlA's training and technical assistance provider for the CSCATL 

Program, mentioned facility size in tenus of overall square footage for the facility, 

andlor 92,000 square feet and 132 beds for the detention portion of the facil ity. 

Three months into the project, the first semi-annual progress report, submitted in 

January 2010, included meeting notes that referred to 48 beds. However, it was 

apparent to 8JA, through the substantive documentation listed above, that the Tuba 

City project was going to be at O f near the 132·bed capacity. 

BJA also found that the early semi-annual progrcs~ reports for the Kayenta 

project, under Grant Number 2009-ST -B9-01 00, indicated that the total square 

footage of the facility would increase to accommodate additional programming 

space, but would not increase the bed space. As planning and design C()ntinued 

for the facility, BJA found that Alpha had noted that the project's scope had 

increased in ~ize and bed space. Because ofthe..~ changes, DlA and Alpha 

worked with the Navajo Department of Corrections (NODC) to submit a change 

in project scope Grant Adjustment Notice (GAN) for the grant which included 

these changes, a.~ well a~ addressed any potentia! issues with the NEPA 

clearance. These changes were reviewed and approved by BJA, in GAN Number 

14, on August 7, 2012 (see Attaelunent 3). 

5 

23
 
In addition, BJA closely tracked the project milestones for its construction 

projects, beginning in January 20 II. BlA held hi-weekly meetings on the 

ARRA·funded projects and established a monthly tracking mechanism, which 

included the facility bed-space numbers for all of the ARM-funded projects, 

including the Tuba City and Kayenta facilities, as well as progress towards 

completion of each of the projeet milestones, including completion of the NEPA 

requirements and submission of project designs to the U.s. Department of Interior, 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BfA) for review and approval. 

As the projects moved through the design phase, BJA wa~ aware of and was 

tracking the bed-space plans and any modifications. Because the overall si:a: of 

the facilities remained consistent with the applications, BlA determined that a 

change ofscopc GAN for the Tuba City and Kayenta projects based on 

bed-space alone was not necessary. If a change in the purpose, scope, or overall 

usc of the facilities being constructed with the granl funds had been identified, a 

GAN would have been required, as it was with the Kaycnta project. 

The OIG report used the tenn "excessive" to describe the size of the Tuba City and 

Kayenta fac ilities that were constructed. The deplorable conditions in many tribal 

correctional facilities that actively housc offenders remains a concern that ARRA 

addressed through the new construction of facilities on tribal lands. BJA foc used 

efforts on n::ducing and replacing the use of out-mooed structures that fail to 

provide programming space to impact oITender behavior, and that through design 

may provide a more safe and efficient use of correctional staff in their management 

of inmates. 

BJA found that the Navajo Nation slated in its applications, fo r the Tuba City and 

Kayenta projects, it had five adult jail facilities throughout the various pans of the 

Navajo Nation that were old, deteriorated, and facing closures. The Navajo Nation 

further stated in its applications thai a group of inmates had filed a class action suit 

in 1992 aneging inhumane conditions, such as overcrowding, lack of personal 

hygiene, and inadequate nutrition in Navajo jails. In response, the Navajo Nation 

Window Rock District Court issued a consent decree thaI required that all persons 

housed in Navajo jails should be detained Wldcr humanc conditions. The consent 

decree held that, iffunds were not available to take the necessary steps to hou~e 

offenders under humane conditions, the jail population must be reduced so that the 

remaining inmate~ are hou'iCd accordingly. 

To that end, the Navajo Nation stated that it had to stop prosecuting certain crimes 

because they were not able to house offenders at the standards required under the 

consent decree. Based on the infonnation in Navajo Nation's grant applications, 

prior to the consent decree, five of six Navajo Nationjails had a capacity of more 

than 50 beds per facility, for a total of250 beds, compared to the total 0[59 beds 

(all facilities combined) prior to receiving ARRA funding. The Navajo Nation 

President was able to end the consent decree requirements in December 2014, due 

in part to the new bed-space capacity provided through the ARRA-funded projects. 

6 

24
 
BJA supports tribal justice systems' ability to use correctional facilities as a tool to 

provide for public safety, as well as to apply correctional programming to 

offenders to reduce recidivism rales by addressing domestic violence, gang 

violence, substance abuse and other serious crimes. In consideration of Navajo 

Nation's population ofapproximatcly 250,000, which covers an area the size of the 

state of West Virginia, the provision of the two new modernized facilities in Tuba 

City and Kayenta., with a combined capacity of212 beds through the ARRA 

funding, BlA docs not believe these facilities are excessive. 

Further, thc OlG stated in its report that the BiA expressed concerns to BlA 

regarding the large size nf the Tuba City corrcctional facility and staffing for the 

Kayenta correctional facility because the Kayenta district does not have the 

population to support the jail size. BlA stated that BfA maintains an inventory of 

tribal detention facilities and an assessment of detention needs for tribes in Indian 

Country. Given BIA's limited resources to fund operations, maintenance, and 

staffing of detention, and knowledge as it relates to their tribal facilities priority 

listing, BlA has always recognized the importance of including 131/\ in the 

decision.making and development of all BlA-funded construction projects on 

tribal lands. 

However, when given the history of funding available, the BIA is funded only to 

provide operational capacity at approximately 40-50 pereent, regardless of where 

in Indian County the facilities are built. The BIA did not provide infonnation on 

funding capability s~ific to any particular project, but informed B1A of the 

shortfall in operations and maintenance, after the awards were made under ARRA. 

ARRA provided $225 million in construction dollars to build capacity for the 

incarceration of offenders subject to tribal jurisdiction without the guarantee of 

future funding for operations and maintenance of these facilities. If the tribal 

governments are not able to operate a facility on their own, then the tribe would 

have the opportunity to requt:st that the BIA assume responsibi lity for operating 

and maintaining these facilities. 

Given the important role of the RIA in future success of projects constructed 

through the CSCATL Program, BlA and the Navajo Nation coordinated with BIA 

throughout the design and construction ofthe Tuba City and Kayenta projects. 

BIA was also given (he opportunity to review and comment on the applications 

submitted under the CSCATL solicitations, and concurred with BJA on the 

funding decisions for both the Tuba City and Kayenta projects. Further, the 

Navajo Nation provided BIA with the design documents for the facilities at the 

20 percent, 70 pereent, and 99 percent design review levels. These designs were 

approved by BIA prior to construction at the Tuba City and Kayenta facilities. 

7 

25
 
Additionally, BJA held conference calls every 3·5 months with the Navajo Nation, 

Alpha, and BIA to discuss the design and construction status as well as 

operational and transitional planning. BJA stated that all participants were given 

the opportunity to raise any concerns regarding the construction and future 

opcr'dtion o f the facilities. Further, BJA stated that 811\ did not express any 

concerns or objections to BJA regarding the size or operation of the facilitie s 

during the conference calls or throughout the project period of these grants. 

In hindsight, BjA recognizes that there appears to be some discrepancy with the 

recommended size for the facilities in relation to the 2007 Master Plan. However, 

no fonnal scope change was required, since the size requirements for the Tuba 

City and Kayenta facilities were not specific to bed-space numbers in the 

applications, as originally submitted. Additionally, the size and scope of the 

construction related to the Kayenta project (Grant Number 2009·ST -8 9-0 I 00) 

was fonnally approved by BJA on August 7, 2012, through GAN Number 14. 

Based on the foregoing information, the Office of Justice Programs respectfully 

requests closure of all parts of this recommendation. 

We apprecillte the opportunity to review and comment on the draft audit report. If you hllve lIny 

questions or require additional information, please contact Jeffery A. Haley, Deputy Director, 

Audit and Review Division, on (202) 616-2936. 

Attaclunents 

cc: Jeffery A. Haley 

Deputy Director, Audit lind Review Division 

Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management 

Denise O'Donnell 

Director 

Bureau of Justice Assb1ance 

Tracey Trautman 

Deputy Director for Programs 

Bureau of Justice Assistance 

Eileen Garry 

Deputy Director for Planning 

Bureau of Justice Assistance 

Pamela Cammamta 

ChiefofStaff 

Bureau of Justice Assistance 

Michael Bottner 

Budget Director 

Bureau of Justice Assistance 

8 

26
 
cc: Amanda wCiccro 

Budget Analyst 

Bureau of Justice Assistance 

Jonathan Faley 

Associate Deputy Director, Programs Office 

Bureau of Justice Assistance 

Michael Dever 

Division Chief, Programs Office 

Bureau of Justice Assistance 

Darn Schulman 

Grant Program Specialist 

Bureau of Justice Assistance 

Julius Dupree 

Policy Adviwr. Policy Office 

Bureau of Justice Assistance 

Leigh A. 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 Chief Financial Officer 

Richard P. Theis 

Assistant Director, Audit Liaison Group 

Internal Review and Evaluation Office 

Justice Management Division 

OlP Executive Secretariat 

Control Nwnber 1"1"20150617093341 

9 

27
 
This page left intentionally blank. 
 

 

 

RUSSELL BEGAYE PllESIDENT 

JONATHAN NEZ VICE PRESIDENT 

Ol1icc of M:magcmcllt ,md Budget. Post OJ1i('c Box 64li • Window Hock,!\L. 86515 

(928) 871-6470 Telephone • (928) 871-6.567 Facsimile 

APPENDIX 4 

NAVAJO NATION RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT28 

THENAVi\JO NATION 

July 20,2015 

David Sheeren, Regional Audit Manager 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Denver Regional Audit Office 

1120 Lincoln, Suite 1500 

Denver, Colorado 80203 

RE: Navajo Nation Response to June 16,2015 OIG Drart Audit Report 

Dear Mr. Sheeren: 

Enclosed is the Navajo Nation Response to the June 16, 2015 Audit of the Office of 

Justice Programs Correctional Systems and Correctional Alternatives on Tribal Lands Program 

Grants Awarded to the Navajo Division of Public Safety. The Response consists of a Cover 

Letter, the Management Representation Letter, a Table of Contents, the Narrative, and Exhibits. 

If you have any questions, please call me at (928) 871-6033. 

Sincerely, 

(! (lI'v\;I rCordellSh~ Contracting Officer 

Contracts and Grants Section 

Office of Management and Budget 

Enclosure 

cc: Robert Willie, Acting Controller, OOC 

Delores Greyeyes, Director, DOC 

Jesse Delmar, Acting Executive Director, NDPS 

Regina Holyan, Principal Attorney, NNDOJ 

Linda]. Taylor, USDO], OJP, Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management 

28 Attachments to this response were not included in this final report. 

28
 
o 

o 

o 

TAIlLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

INTRODUCTION ..... ..... .... .... ........... ............... .. ... ... .. ..... ................... 1 

1. Ensure lhat NDPS implements a rroccs~ to verify tlmt recipients ofooJ 

funds ;\!'C not sUlipcndcd or dl:b.lrred ..... ..... .... .. .......... ............................. 1 

2. Remedy $656,921 in unsupportct.l qUCSltoOl.:d costs ror Grant Number 

2009·ST ·1l9...()()89 ............. ................. .............................................. 1 

3, Remedy $2,554,924 ;n unallowable questioned costs associatctl with the 

lo llowing issu!:s: .......... .... .. .. .. . ..... ........ .. ..... .. ............. . ... . .. ............... 2 

a. Remedy $528,082 in );rant reimbursements expended nn court rdocolion 

costs charged to Gram Number 2oo9-ST ·B9-0089 ................................... 2 

b. Remedy $8 15,248 in grant reimbursements for non·grant cxpenditures 

charged to Gront Number 2009-ST -119-0089 ................. ........................ 3 

c. Remedy $563,262 in grant reimbursements for expenditures that 

occurred prior to environment .. 1 clearance for Grant Number 

2009-ST·B9-0089 . .. ....... .............................. ............................... .4 

d. Remedy $648,332 in grant reimbursements for expenditures that occurred 

prior 10 environmental clearance for Grant Number 2009-ST·B9·0100 .......... .4 

4. Remedy $16,669 in unallocntcd matching costs for Grant Number 

2009-IP-8X·0074 ............ ... . .......................... .. .. ..... .............. ............. 5 

5. Ensure NDI'S meets the malch requirement lor Grant Number 

2009-ST -89-0100 by Ihe end oflhe grant... ............ ... .. .. ........................... 5 

6. Remedy $535,545 in funds 10 better use lWOCialed wilh unexpended grunt 

runds: ..... .•.. ..... ............... .............................................................. 5 

a. Remedy $9.620 in funds 10 beller use for Grant Number 2008-IP-BX-0036 .... 5 

b. Remedy $525.925 in funds 10 beller use for Grant Number 2009-ST -89-0089.5 

7. Ensure that NDPS implements a process 10 submit Ff'Rs that accurately retlee! 

expenditures fo r each reponing period ................................ ............... ...... 5 

8. Remedy $290, \16 in unallowable expenditures Il5sociated with unneeesSilry 

planning grants: ......... ........ .... ..........•................... ............................ 6 

a. Remedy $140.380 for Gr.mt Number 2008-JP-BX·OO36 ........................... 6 

b. Remedy $ 149,736 for Grant Number 2009-IP-BX-0074 ........................... 7 

9. Remedy $32.034,623 in unalloWlible cxpenditures ll550Ciated with cxcessive 

building sizes: ................................................. ... . ... .. .. ..... ................ 7 

o. Remedy 520,375.234 for Grant Number 2009-ST·B9-0089 ....................... 7 

h. Remedy 5 11 ,659,389 for Grunt Number 2009-ST· B9-OIOO .. ..................... 7 

29
 
o 

o 

NAVi\.IO NATION RESPONSE TO OIG DRAFT AUDIT REPORT 

SulJmiltcd nn ,Iuly 211, 2015 

Introdudion 

The Navajo Nation responds 10 the Dr.1fi Audit Report ("Audit Report") of the USOOJ Omee of 

Justice Progrnms Correctional S~lems arld Correctional Alternatives un Tribal Lands Progr.am 

Grants Awan.lctlto the Nuvlljo Division or Public SnlclY. While the Navajo Nation recognizes 

thai the gr.lIIlccs uflhe American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ("ARRA") Gmnts were the 

Navajo Division of Public S:lIety ("NDPS"), the Response is structured in terms of cxpl:lining 

and discussing the actions of three specilic Navajo Nalion Programs: 

• Department of Corrections ("DOC") is the Dcpllrtment within NDPS that actually 

iuJministcrcu and implemented the audilcd ARRA gr.mls; 

• omec of the Controller (,'OOC"). within the Division of Finance:, is responsible: to 

develop policies to implement linancilll accounting and reporting lor grolnts awunlcd to 

the: Navajo Nation; und 

" Olliee of Manugement and Budget ("OMB") provides services to Navajo Nation 

Progmms in the areas of budgct development, contract and grant administration, und 

mUIl.1gemcnt and policy development. 

The brucketcd numbers before doll:lr amounts noted in this Response are numbers keyed to the 

sprc.1dsh .... et tllllt wus provided by the Ollice of the Inspector General ("OIG Spreadsheet") and is 

incorporated :IS Exhibit I. Exhibits provide supporting documentulion cltcept lor those 

documents presumed to be known or obtaincd by the Otlice of Inspector General learn that 

conducted the audit such as the ARRA Grant Award documents and the 2007 Navajo Nation 

Master PI:ln. 

I. Ensure thaI NDPS implementll a process to verify that recipients or DOJ runds are not 

suspended ur debarred Concurrence 

Exhibit 2 is the DOC Policy Memo Ih:lt otlici:llly notilies DOC staff to implement the 

procedure: outlined cnective immediatdy in order to verilY that recipients of USDOJ funds 

arc not suspended or debarred. 

2. Remedy 5656,921 in unsullporled questioned eosls for Grant Number 2OQ9·ST·B9·0089 

Partial Concurrence 

DOC identilied the transactions listed on the OIG Spreadsheet by the Transaction Date 

column of the OIG Spreadsheet. which dalcs mlltched the dates that Navajo Nation checks 

WCf"e issued for each 1"eSpt."Ctivc trnnsaction listed in the OIG spreadsheet. DOC uses the term 

"payapp,'" for pay applications. 

a [I) $189.258 Pay Apo 118 Arviso-Okland Nonconcurrence 

Arviso-Oklllnd submitted the totlll invoice Ilmount for $2.033.369. The amount by Arcadis o 01'$1,830,032 was incorrect because it should not hllve: deducted 10% retainage from Arviso· 

30
 
o 

o 

o 

Oklanu's amount. DOC subtracted oUl $14,079 rrom the lolal t\rviso-OklunJ invoice 

hccausc $ 14,079 was unullowublc (:osts. 'llle m.ljustcJ total invoice :.!Inullnt thus became 

$2,019,290. The Receiving Record ret]ucslcd payment 10 Arviso-Okland using the 

:52,019,290 amount, and Ihe $189,258 is included in the S2,0 1 9,290. Exhibit) 

h. [JJ $]92,3 11 ray ApD #22 Arviso-Okhnd Nonconcurrence 

Pay App #22 paid three (3) invoices Ih;1I totaled $8]8,339, Invoices were p:liJ on a 73% 

(ARRA) and 27% (other sources) split. Seventy-three percent of $8]8,339;$611,987. 

However, bl!Cuusc the Furniture, Fi;durcs & Equipment balance at Ihallime was S392,311, 

only $392,311 was charged 10 ARRA. Since, 001V. 2009-ST-B9-0089 has an cnding balance 

ofS525.925, the difference ($219,676) between $611,987 and S]92,] II will be charged to 

the ARRA account. DOC has dralleLl a Workshet!t that OOC can use as II basis for 11 

processing this transfer. E.~hibits 4 (lnd 5. 

c. [41 $]4,0]4 Invoice # I Dymn Mumhy Concurrence 

The total amount for invoice #1 was $261,177, of which 75% was to be charged to ARRA. 

"Iowever, only $]4,0]4 was initially charged to ARRA. The difference ($161 ,849) between 

S261,177 and S34,034 will be transferred to the ARRA account. DOC has drafted a 

Workshct:1 that OOC can usc as a basis lor processing this transfer. Exhibit 5. 

tI. [51 536,387 Pay Apo #3 Dvmn Mumhv Concurrence 

Even though the invoice stated that $74,642 or the total invoice amount ($111,029) was to be 

chtuged to ARRA, $111,029 was charged to ARRA. The ditTerence (S]6,]87) between 

SIII,029 and S74,642 will be transferred to a non-ARRA account. DOC has drafted a 

Worksht:ct that OOC cun use as a busis lor processing this transler. Exhibit 5. 

e. 125] S 4,929 ray Apo #61 Dvron Murphv Nonconcurrence 

The lolder contuining this transaction did not have the supporting documents lor the invoice 

total of $4,929. OOC forwurded the supporting documents for this transaction to DOC, am.! 

they ure attached. Exhibit 6. 

3, Remedy $2,554,924 in unllllowable qucstioned costs associated with the following issucs: 

Parti:1I Concurrence 

a. Remedy $528,082 in grunt reimbursements cxpended on court relocation costs charged to 

Gmnt Number 2009-S! -89-0089 Nonconcurrence 

[2] 5528,082 Pay App #17 Arviso-Okland 

DOC identitied Pay App #17 as the transaction that DIG seemed to believe paid court 

relocation costs. In the rront or Pay App #17 folder were stapled pagt:s of which the first 

page included a chart that listed "court relocation costs" in the amount of 5528,082. 

Exhibit 7a. DOC surmises that OIG may have used this sheet as a basis tor believing that 

$528,082 was used for court relocation costs. These stapled pages should not have been 

in the Pay App # 17 folder and have been removed from this folder. 

The General Conditions and Site Conditions listing from this Pay App show that none or 

items listed was lor "court relocation costs," Exhibit 7b. Pay App 1117 did not pay for 

court relocation costs. 

, 

31
 
o 

o 

o 

DOC Incah:lI the h~ (3) Pay Apps llml did pay coun rcloc:ltion cos's. E.'(hibits: Sa-Pay 

App #2 Arvi.m-Okland. Kb-Pay I\pp #4 Arviso-Okland. Be-Pay App 116 Arviso-Okland. 

And Ihese CllstS lYere nOI charged 10 the ARRA account. 

b. Itcml!uy $8 15,248 in )!r;!nt rcimbuG!c cnt~ ror non-lI.rJnt c.'wcnsJjlures Ch:lO!cd 10 Gronl 

Numhcr 200Q·ST -119-0089 PRoipi Concurrence 

I) [61 S27,276 Pay App 114 Arviso-Okillml Concurrence 

The 5/) 0/ 11 i\rcaJis leiter ;Iod the invoic!: noled that invoice charges were for bolh Tuba 

City \lod Crownpoint. The lolal invoice ;!mount wus $33.149. The $27,276 incorrectly 

charl:cd 10 the ARRA account will be Ctl!TCctly trnnslcrn:d to a non-ARRA account. 

DOC has drJ.llcd a Worksheet that OOC com usc as a basis for processing this trnnsfer. 

ExhibitS. 

2) 126] S12 1,805 Pay App 1# 13 Arviso-Okland Concurrence 

All the costs includcd in this Pay App were c~pcnt.led lor Crownpoint, but the total 

inv()kc amount of S I21,805 was incorrectly charged to the ARRA account. The total 

cll:lrge of $121,805 will be trans/emd to a non-ARRA :lccount. DOC has drafted a 

Workshect thai ooc: can use as:l basis for processing this transfer. Exhibit 5. 

3) 5666, 166 Other Non-Grant E;'(pcndilures P:lrti31 Concurrence 

The Nation noted these transactions as "partial concurrence" because OVl"r a ye:lf ago 

DOC ~ubmitlcd worksheets for OOC to transle r these transOlClions to appropriate 

accounts. Initially, these costs were all cnargl.'() to COI412.68I3, the Sales Tax Fund, 

bec:wse this was the only rund avai lable during the pre-construction phase. In January 

2014, DOC submitted Worksheet I, E;'(hibil9, to OOC so OOC could b35e its transfers 

on the WorksOcct. But OOC instructed DOC to revise Worksheet I. DOC did so and 

submitted the revision:ls Worksheet 2 in MOIrch 2014, Exhibit 10. However, when OOC 

OIc tuOllly processed the transfe~ in July 2014, it inadVertently based Ute transfers on 

Worksheet I instead of Worksheet 2. E:<hibit I I. DOC has draned a Worksheet that 

OOC c:ln use as a basis for processing t!':mslers of the following transactions from 

E;'(hibit I: llO-22, 24, 27, 7b, Sb, OInd 9bJ. E;'(hibit 12. [23] docs not need to be 

transferred as explaim::d below. 

a) (231 S IO,976.91. The total invoice amount was $50,793.13. But the 

Rcceiving Record dated 7/02112 ch3rged only S3 1,821.20 to the ARRA 

account. The $ 10,976.91 was not charged to the ARRA account. So no 

action needs to be taken on the $10,976.9 1. Exhibit 13. 

b) (27] $43,326.13. Tht' total invoice amount was $ 174,151.89. The 

Receiving RC{;ord daled 11122110 showed thai S123,788.94 was initially 

charged to the ARRA :lccount and $50,362.95 wns charged 10 the Sales Tax 

Fund. DOC has dmlicd ;a Workshed. thai OOC can use ItS a basis for processing a 

tronsfer of$43,326.13 to a non-ARRA account. Exhibit 14. 

c) [8b] $27,01 1.96. The total invoice 3nlOunt was $77,528.04, but 

Receiving Rttord dated 7/0 1110 charged only $71,938.56 to the Sales Tax 

J 

32
 
o 

o 

o 

rund. This $71,938.56 \VIIS incorrectly lr.mslcITcu to the ARRA acctlunt. 

l)cc:lusc of the short pay on this Ir:msaclion, only $25,178.50 (nol S27,OI I.1)6) 

needs to be tr:msrcm."tI to II non-ARRA account. DOC h:!s ,jr.an~d :I Worksh ....... 

Ih3\ OOC can use as a basi, for pruc:cssing this lrunsf .. T. Exhibit IS. 

,. i t 

These three transactions lire [71. [8). IIml [91listctl in Exhibit I. DOC began I,lxpcmling 

funlls relative to an environmental clco.rnnce with the umlcr.n3nJing thai funus could be 

c'"<pcnoL-o so long as it paid for activities that did nut '"break ground." 1111S understllntlin~ 

wa.s conJirnll.:d by the scminurs on gront mamlgcmcnt thut were aUended by DOC slalT'. 

!'"rsUllnt to the [raining n.~civcd in these seminars, DOC umJcrslood that Special 

Condition 9 in the ARRA Gnmts mCllnt that funds could be ohliglltcu anu e'''P'!nue<.l prior 

10 an environmental clearancc so long as the funus were e:c.pendcd for activitics that diu 

not "break ground." Thus, the thl« transactions wcre for pre-construclion activities such 

as ucvcloping schemntic ucsigns, I:unducting uesign reviews, investigaling gcotcchnicnl 

lactors, cooruin:lting utility factors. and paying costs related to (travel. lodging) 

conducting charrettes. "Charrettes" is n construction industry tenn that means owner, 

projC1.:t mnnager. and general contractor meetings th:lt discuss :lnd dccide overall 

mnn:lgemenl lind monitoring issues. E:c.pending funds for these types of pre.construction 

tlctivities was consistent with DOC's understanding confirmed by the linanci31 grant 

m3n3gemcnl scmin3111. 

DOC does plan to submit a request to the USDO} Bureau or Justice Assistance ("OlA") 

for 3 lin:l! detennin3!ion and retro3ctive :Ipproval of these three IronSllctions by 

submitting e:c.pI3nation,juslilication and supporting document3!ion lor its request. 

u, Rcmctly $648,332 in grant reimbursements for c:c.oendituln that occurreU prior to 

environment31 cle;aronce for Gront Number 2Q09.ST.B9--O IOO P3rti:l1 Concurreoce 

TI)Csc twenty transactions [28 through 471 ate listed in Exhibit I. DOC begun expending 

funds relative to an environmental clearance with the understanding th31 funds could be 

c:-:pended so long as it paid for aetivitiesthnt uid not "break ground," This undcrstanding 

was conlinned by the seminars on grant mamlgement that were attended by DOC stall: 

Pursuant to the tr.lining receivf!d in these seminars. DOC understood th3t Special 

Condition 9 in thf! ARRA Grunts mennt thatlunds could be obligated and expended prior 

to 3n environmental clcaronce so long as the tunds were expended lor activ ities that did 

not "break ground." Thus. the twenty transactions were [or pre·construction 3ctivities 

such as rights of wily issues, chaTfetles, and conducting concept designs, design revicws, 

schematic designs, and utility coordination. Expending funds for these lypes of pre. 

construction oclivitlcs wos consistent with DOC's understnnding confinned by the 

linancial grant m3nagement seminars. 

'A DOC 5ll1fTmcmbc:r nttelldcd tinlllloCiat m~lIag~menl !lCmilWl lh ~1 wo:n: ho:td ill WlI5hinglon DC lind Albuqll~rquc 

NM. 1l ~ DOC Director Dlld one 5tafTmembc:r mtcoocd the Rtiiollllt Financiat Management Trainln; Scmillar hdd 

in I'hUO:lli ~ on Fcbn.wy 2t-24, 2012. (collld 1101 to(:lItc trainin; announcements wilhin lhe lime rramc 10 "ubmit our 

Response) 

4 

33
 
o 

o 

o 

In .. Jditinn, DOC initiated an cnvironmcnlat clcarJllCc-related process in 2009. As is 

usually the case. numerous issues came up which had to addressed and mitigated. Over 

1111: cour:IC of obtaining environmental clearnnce. DOC workcd wilh four USOOJ policy 

advisors. Alpha Corporation. a construction linn hired by BJA (0 provide I~hnical 

assisl;lOCc to Indian construction projects. was able 10 lina lly clarify and coordinate all 

the work that had been done so that an environmental clearance approval was lilllllly 

issul!d in June 20 II. 

DOC docs plan 10 submit a request to I3JA for a final determination ;lnd retroactive 

approv;!! of these twenty transuctions by submitting explanation, justification and 

supporting documentation lor its request. 

... Remedy 516,669 in unallocated ma lchlng costs (or Grant Number 2009·IP·8X-0074 

Concurrence 

DOC had init iated in November 2012 a request for waiver or the mntch requirement lor this 

Grnnt Ilowever, our request for waiver was never processed for action. We will now 

submit a request to BJA for a retnl<lclive approvnl for a waiver of the IlUItch requirement. 

E.'~hibi t 16. 

5. Ensure NDPS meets Ihe match requirement for Grlln! Number 1009·ST·B9·0100 by the 

end oflhe grunt Nonconcurrence 

The Nation concludes this as a nonconcurrence bec:lUse it has met the malch requirement 

already. 1be millch requirement lor this Grant was mct by an appropriation in the amount of 

$3,5 17,253 from Ihe Judicial Public Safety Special Revenuo:s Fund. The approPfiation was 

used as u eash match and is verified on the Navajo Nation FMIS printout Exhibit 17. 

6. Remedy SS3S,545 in funds to better use aS50cilited with unexpended grunt funds: 

Concurrence 

a. Remedy $9,620 in funds to beller use for Ornnt Number 2008-IP-8X·OO36 

The implementation of this Planning Grant did result in an unused balance of 59,620. 

Goals and objectives were completed. 

b. Remedy 5525,925 in funds 10 better use for Grnnt Number 2009-ST -09-0089 

This Construction Grant did result in nn unused balance. DOC will submit 

documentation 10 OOC 10 process tronslers both olT and on to the ARRA accounl as 

stated elsewhere in Ihis Response. 

7. En.sure Ihul NDPS implements u proeeSJ to submit FFR.s that accurately rened 

espc!IIditures for I!lIch reporling period Partial Concurrence 

OOC prepam and submits Federal Fin:lOcial Reports (" FFRs") on USDQJ grants awarded 10 

Navajo Notion Progrnms. OOC's Contract Accounting Section processes FFRs and initiates 

drawdowns of USDOJ funds. The process to submit FFRs by OOC is shown in Exhibit 18. 

, 

34
 
lUld which is Irom the Accounting Pulici![s ami Procedures Mjlnual. CtlotrJct/Grnnl Standard 

ReQ!1r1im; I'r O!:~s5 Procedures. 

·1111.l Conlmct and Grants Section ("CGS") of OMB monitors Navajo Nation Progmms that 

adminisler USOOJ gronts to ensure complianc!! with the grJnt lIgret!mcnls. In urtlcr to more 

dTl"Ctivcly monitor that these Programs are complying with Gmnt Special Conditions, Ihe 

Navajo Nation implemented a higher level of compliance revi![w. 

CGS uses Letters of Assurance ("LOAs") as a means by which Programs verify their 

complillncc with Gmnt Special Conditions. In addition, COS conducts other reviews that 

include tin:lIIcial review, narrative reports, budget revisions. mtltching IUnds, tlnd single 

lIudil. Upon the complction of the LOAs with :luachments, Exhibit 19, CGS notities OOC 

thut it may roc~d with drawdowns ofUSDOJ funds. 

The stcps for the compliance review are 35 follows: 

I. A Program is responsible for the i~ly submission of its annual and quartl-rly 

narrative reports to USDOJ funding t1gency. The Program forwards a copy of its 

narrative reports to CGS for review. 

2. CX>C is responsible for the timely submission of quarterly FFRs to USDOJ lunding 

agencies. OOC forwards copies of the FFRs to CGS for review. 

3. COS conducts the Compliance Check by reviewing the !>rogrnm's most recent FFRs 

and namttive report, budget revisions. matching funds, single audit. Grnnt Adjustment 

Notices ("GAN"), and Close Oul of Contracts. 

4. Upon completion of Ihe Compliance Check, COS issues an LOA with attachments 

that infonns OOC that the Program is in compliance and that OOC may proceed with 

drawdown ofUSDOJ funds. 

S. Once an LOA is received by DOC, OOC wi/l drawdown the funds for that quarter. 

8. Remedy 5290,11 6 in unallowable expenditures IIssoc:iated with unneceS5ary phmning 

grllnlS Nonconcu ..... ence 

a. Remedy $140,380 for Grant Number 2008-IP-BX-0036 

This Planning Gmnt was initially funded lo r the Tuba City facility. but approval was 

received Ihrough a GAN to use the Grant lo r n lacility proposed for Dilkon. The 

justification stated in OAN dated 11122/11 ellplained that Navajo Nation Tax Fund had 

paid for most of the Tuba City facility planning; and therefore, it requested thai the 

Planning Grant be repurposed to planning fOf a Dilkon facility. Exhibit 20. DOC made 

no reference to the 2007 Master Plan ("Master Plan") in its justification. 

nle Planning Orant funded a nl,,,,-ds assessment that extensively surveyed and analyzed 

the Di lkon community.l The needs assessment focused on factors sP'Xifically rooted in 

! As Il<'k'd in Ihe Inlroduclion, doc:umcnls lhal ~re known 10 0 10 or were provided 10 0 10 by Ihe Nllvmjo Nalion 

...turing Ihe 0 10 aUlJil wili noI be included as exhibits. buL p:lge numbc:rs. where .. ppropri~lc, lire ciled. For uamptc. 

_hi$ ~,-",inn diSl:USSI.'S lhe Ditkon Needs Asscssmcn, Rcpnn, Ille Kayenla Ptanning Su ..... y Report, aoo lhe 2007 

MaslC( I'lan. 

6 

o 

o 

o 

35
 
o 

o 

o 

the Ditkon community- lnclOfS such :IS population trend, .. .'cooomi..: proj~15 Ol1b'Oiog in 

the community, education level prolilc!. calls for service \0 Ditkon Police District. 

:lrrests, criminal ilnd civil case prolilcs in the Ditkon District Court, and jail detention 

stalistics. Thus, th..: activities conducted under Ihis Planning Gnmt IOcuscd specifically 

on researching, collecting, ~mc.l ,lnulyzing iolorm:llioo thai would inlorm decisions to be 

made ilb"ul JI.'Signing ami constnK:ling U cOITCctillns lilcilily in Ditkon. 

"rhe purpose of the Master Plan was cnlirely dilTerent [rom Ihe purpose of Ihe Plllnning 

GrJnls. 'nlC Master Plan was intended us a "vision" lhul addressed proposed justice 

system services lor the entire Navajo Nation, pg. 1.2. The Master Plan staled Ihal it 

IlreScnlcJ prototypes lor cutegorics or focilities (Iargc, medium, and small) and that thesc 

prototypes shnuld be specilically adapted for each sp<.:cilic project, pg. 1.8. The 

prototypes would need to :lCComm0lJ3te variations and would need to be moditied 

because the prototypes were not intended lor any specific localion, pgs.I.4, 1.9 :lI'Id 2.2. 

The planning presented by the Master Plan focused on a Nav:ljo N:llion·wide SC:lle 

wht!TeIlS the Dilkon PI:lnning Gr-lIIt lOc:used on the community of Dilkon. Therelore. the 

Planning Grant for Ditkon was nccl'Ss3ry. 

b. Remedy $149.736 for Grnnt Number 2008·IP·I3 X·0074 

This PI:lnning GrolOt funded a needs assessment that extensively surveyed lind analyzed 

the Kayenta communilY. The needs assessment focused on lactors specifically rOOled in 

the Kayenl3 community- Inclors such as POPUl31ion trend, educ3tion level profile. 

cmployment prolile. calls for service to Kayenta Police District, aJTeSls. bookings. 

ch:lr:Jetcristics of Kayent3 jail population. criminal and civil case trends in the Kayenta 

District Court. and jail detention statistics. Thus. the activities conducted under this 

Planning Grant focused specifically 1'11'1 rese:lrching, collecting, and an:llyzing infonn:ltion 

that would inform decisions to be made about designing and conslrutting a corrections 

Incility in Kaycnta. 

The purpose of the Master Plan was entirely different from the purpose of the Planning 

Grants. 10e Master Plan was intended as a "vision" that oddresst:d proposed justice 

system services ror the Navojo Nolion, pg. 1.2. TIle Master Plan stated that it presentcd 

prototypes rorcategories of[ocililie5 (1:II'ge, medium, and small) and thai these prototypes 

should be sped fically adapted for cach specilic projt:cl. pg. 1.8. The prototypes would 

need to octomrmxJate variotions ond would need to bt: moditied because the prototypes 

were not intended lor any specific locatinn. pgs.I.4, 1.9 and 2.2. The planning presented 

by the Master Plan IOcused on a Novajo Nation-wide scale whereas the Kayenta Planning 

Grant focused on the community or Kayt:n!a. Therefore, the Planning Grant for Kayenta 

was necessary. 

9. Remcdy $32,034,623 in ullallowuble expenditures assochued with excessive building 

sizes Nonconcurrence 

a. Remedy $20.37S.234 [or Grnot Number 2009·ST·B9·Q089 

b. Remedy $ 1 1.659.389 [or Grant Number 2Q09·ST·B9·0 IQO 

1 

36
 
o 

o 

o 

The N:llion's Response 10 Recommend:uion 9 addresses both gr.mts.

J In the speci lic 

circumstances of this audit, the k"'l1l1, "excessive building Si7.e" implies that the Nalion 

constructed r3eilitics th;!! exceedetl the square footage ("SF") set out in the grant applications. 

The grant applic:lIion for the Tuba City Ibcilily slated I [ 1,848 SF. and the completed facility did 

not c)[ce\!d this SF. The SF oflhe Tuba City facility actually tumed out 10 be 87,709 SF. E.'thibil 

21. The SF lor the Kayenta facility was slated as 91,036, lind the completed facility did not 

C)[ct."t!'u this SF. The SF of Kayenta aClUlllly tumed out to be 53,009 SF. Exhibit 22. Thus, the 

Nation did not I:onslruct facilities of "excessive size," Too, the number or beds per facility was 

nol proposed nor staled in the grant applications for Tuba City and Kayenta. The ARRA Grant 

Awards lor each facility set out no requirement as to specific SF or number.; orbed per Ibcility. 

'nil! discussion below clearly shows that the Nation did not construct faciliti es of "excessive 

size," 

Tuba City Facility 

GrJnt aoolieation. The Nation's Application N:uTative for the Tubn City Construction Grnot 

states tht: purpose of the applicalion in only two places. On page 7. tbe Nation Slated, '!he goal 

of this proposal is to build a Multi-Purpose Justice Center in Tuba City, Arizona to replace the 

old jail that was demolished." On page 12 is the statement: ''The Navnjo Nation requests 

538,587,570 to construct an 11 1,848 square foot Multi·Purpose Justice Center to replnce the 

militnry bnrmcks currently used as jails." In addition, the Application Narrntive does not stale 

that a certain number of beds is intended or planned for the proposed Tuba City facility. 

The Nation's Application Narrative mentions the Master PhlO in on ly two places. The first 

mention, on page 7. noles only that a Master Plan was completed, and the second mention, on 

page 9, states lhal the Master Plan "includes land withdrawals, site assessments and evaluolions." 

Thus, the Application Narrative merely notes a Master Plan has been completed. It does not go 

on to stale that the Master Pion required a certain number of beds ond square footage for the 

proposed Tubn City facility. Moreover, the Master Pilln, pg. 1.8, noted thot its "size of detention 

components" was based on the assumption thnt a N:lVajo Correctionol Rehabilitation Cenh:r 

1V0uid be established, Therefore, the detention sizes presented in the Master Pion must be 

modified in light of the filet that, as of this date, no plans are being contemploted to estoblish a 

Rehabilitation Center. 

Grnot Award, The Tuba City Applicotion Budget Narrative ond Budget Detail Worksheet note 

the faci lity's SF as 111 ,848 SF. The Tuba City ARRA Oranl Aword includes no mention, much 

less 0 requirement that the Tuba City ARRA Grunt is to be used to construct on ly a certain 

s4uare-IOotage faci lity with a certain number of beds. In addition, the Grant Manager's 

Memorandum, PT.I: Project Summary notes that the Master Plan presents a "vision" for 

addressing diverse services thaI could reduce rntes of re-arrests ond incocccration, but does not 

require the Nation 10 strictly apply the SF and number or beds from the Master Pion to the design 

tlnd construction of the Tuba City fac ility 

) AlO'1i n. rcfCn:n«5 10 glint applications, grotIl :IlVlIrds. pnd MOSIer !'Ian tite: onty ~e: numbers lIS OIG has Ihcsc 

doo.:umo:nlS. 

8 

37
 
o 

o 

Kayenta Facility 

Grant Applicatiun. 'nH: Nation's Application Narrative lor thl; Kilycnl:J Construction Gr,lOt 

S\OItcs the! purpose of the application in only OOt~ pl(lce. On page 7. lhe NaiiOfl sl:Jlcd. "The goal 

IIf Ihis proposal is 10 build a lklcnlion Ccnlcr to replace the old jaiL" The Application Namltivc 

does nol Slale a spccil1c SF nor that a certain number of boos was intt!mJed or planned lor the 

proposed Kayenta 1:1cilily. 

The Nation's Application Narrative lor Kayenta mentions the Master Phm in only Iwo places. 

TIll! lirs! nll::nlioo, on pa~e 7. 0011"."5 only that a M3stcr Pli:m was comph .. 'I.etI. and the second 

mention. un p:lYC 10, sl:lleS that Kayenta Township had olre:uJy completed its site plan that 

complemented the Master Plan which " includes I:md withdrawals. site assessments and 

evaluations." Thus, the Application Nlirrutive mcrely notcs a Master PI.:an has been completed. 

It docs not go on to state that the Mastcr Plan required a certain number of beds and square 

tootllge for the proposed Kayenta facility. Moreovcr, the Master Plan, pg. 1.8, noted that its 

"size of dctention components" was based on the assumption thOlt 3. Navajo Correctional 

Rehabilitation Center would be esubl ishcd. Therelore, the detention sizes presented in the 

Master Plan must be modi lied in light of the fact that, as of this dule, no plans are being 

contemplated to esublish a Rehabilitation Center. 

Grant Award. Only the Kayenta Application Budget Detail Worksheet notes the proposed SF for 

the facility as 9 1,036 SF. The Ka),cnta ARRA Gmnt Award includes no mention much less a 

requiremcnl that the Kayenta ARRA Gmnt was to be used to construct only a certain squllrefootage fOldiity with a certain number of beds. In addition, the Gmnt Manager's Memorandum, 

PT./: Proj ect Summ3ry notes onl), thut the Master Plun "entilils 3 strategy" regilrding vurious 

services but does not require the Nution to strictly apply the SF and number of beds from the 

Master Plan to the design and construction of the Kayenta 13dlity. 

The M3sh:r PlOln was intended ilS a "vision" that addressed proposed justicc system services for 

the entire Navajo Nation, pg. 1.2. The descriptions of the general designs for e3ch Iype of 

13dlity (huge, medium, small) are mClInt to lunction as prototypes, pg. 1.4. These prototypes lire 

then to be "adjusted during design to accommod:lle variations in staffing nnd opemtions for each 

District locntion," pg. 1.4. The prototypes would need to accommoo:lte variations and would 

need to be modified tX.'CllU5e tht! ~otypes were not intended for any specific location, pss. IA. 

1.9 nnd 2.2. In other words. the Master Plan was not intended to provide specific sile 

specifications for every lurge, medium, and small f(lcility to be built eventually on the Navajo 

Nation. 1bercforc, the sqUllre Jootage and numbers of beds for the Tuba City and Kaycnta 

f3dlitit!s were consistent with the process of adaptation nnd modification envisioned by the 

Mustcr Plan. 

The actual process of decision-making regarding numbers of beds occurred in the D.rrcttes.~ 

Decisions made in chalTCtles were bused on fnctors such (IS changes in site conditions, revised or 

new assessments, ch;lIIges in costs. and contingenc)' issues that arose. Also, the chnnge in 

number o f beds renected the Master Plan intention tlwt the prototypes would n«essarily have to 

be adapted to speci lic fncilitics. As it was, if thc fncilities h(ld remained with the initial bed 

. 

numbers, D. lnrge bnlnnce would have resultcd in the ARRA Grnnts lor Tub3 City and Kayenta 

Cham:tles arc IIdincti un page" of1his Response. 

9 

o 

38
 
o 

o 

o 

hccuuso.: th..: luc ility sizes would have becn rn:ccssarily smaller. This result would haw, cl!rtainly. 

resulted in lindings against the Nation. 

In addition,lhe Nation relit.'d on the positiv\! lccdlxlck and approvals communicated by the Alpha 

Curpor.llion and IlJA. Alpha Corpornlion providoo ta:hnir.:al assistance lind made site visits to 

the Tuba City :.md KaYl'f\llI projects on the rollowing dales: January 25-26. 20 12; May 15 & 17, 

201 2; July 31 & August 2, 2012; November 13.2012; and February 14-1 5,2013. Exhibit 23. 

These site visits included, for eXllmplc, lours or construction siles, verilication or Buy America 

provision. partidp:llion in construction projcCI meetings, and review of pay apI'S. We understand 

the periudic reports submiued 10 BJA by Alpha Corpor:ttion were approved by BJA. 8lA also 

visitl:u th~ Nation from January 2]·26. 201 2 to review till USDOl grants including the ARRA 

grams. DOC submittcd progress reports 10 BJA which were approved by BJA. Exhibit 24. The 

Iccdbaek given to the Nation alter these visits was unequivocally positivc. In fact, USDOJ was 

so impressed with the implementation of the Tuba City ARRA Grant that it selectcd thc Tuba 

City project as a model project}. Thus, the Nation reasonably relied on the feedback it 

continually l'CI.'Civl"tl through the four years of design :md construction for the Tuba City and 

Kayenta faciliti es. 

In CilOClusion. the Nation did not conslruct facilities of excessive building size. The square 

footage and numbers of beds fOf'the two facilities renccted the intention of the Master Plan Ihat 

thl! pmtOlypcs presented thcre should be adapted specifically lor each location. 

The Notion responds here to DIO 's discussion concerning jail occupancy :md costs of operations 

and corrections slarr. The approach that would renecl a truer need for holding suspects in jails 

across the Navajo Nation is to consider the entire process that ultimately culmin:ues in suspects 

being bookcd in j::til. 

We considL-r lirst the calls for 5Crvice that come in daily to the police dispatchers across the 

Navajo Nation. Calls (01' service are calls from persons who have emergency issues, need police 

assistance or want to report a crime. 'nle NQvajo Police Depanment Total Number ofCglI fQr 

Servjces txt District reported statistics from 2000 to 2014 for all police districts on the Navajo 

Nation. Exhibit. 25. This Report st:lIed that the Kayenta Police District COllis for service between 

2000 and 2014 had a range from 20,87 1 to ] 7,637, and the Tuba City Police District calls for 

service in 2000 was 25, 1]6 and was 69.016 in 2OOS. 

When potiel! olTie~rs get to the scene, among othcr decisions they need to make is whether to 

arrest and book the person(s) cng3ging in criminal corKIuct. This requires Om Cf.'f'$ to evaluate the 

seriousness of lhe otTense and whether iftlctaining and n:leasing the pcrson(s) would not further 

... 'Scal::tte the immediate eircumst3nces lor the other persons involved such liS family members. 

Police olliccrs gcnernlly know the j3il occupancy for.::r. given day because they have been briefed 

at the beginning ofthcir shin as to the numbers in detention in the tocaljail. Ifofficers know the 

j::til occupancy is filled to or neor C3p:1eity, they will detain and rele35e the suspects and issue 

them notices for amignment. However. if a suspect has allegedly committed:1 felony, the police 

olTicer will work with the local prosecutor and criminal investigators to either book the person in 

J Jason RllI:d ur Atpha Corpornlion reponed 10 DOC in the January 2012 site visit th~t USDOJ had sckl:tcd the Tuba 

City pro~tllS D model project Dnd included this in 1111 annual USDOJ I'Cp(In. 

10 

39
 
o 

o 

o 

thl! local jail or relay them for booking into :111 olf-rcscrv:lIion jail pending Icucrtll prosecution. 

"nlis means-if more jUil splice had been uvailablc-ofliccrs would likely book more suspects 

into jail ruther than detaining :lnd rele3sing them. 

The num~rs of persons occupying jilll spa~ on any given day in Navajo jails also impact the 

(Il>cisions prosecutors m:l.kc concerning whether lh~y wi ll oppose bai l and r~uest that suspects 

be detained pcrnJing furtner court proc ... "1:dings. The Judicial Branch orlhe Navajo Nation deals 

with a r.lnge of dilTerent cases throughout the yC3r; i.e., lroffie violations. f.lInily civil. 

Jependency, child in need of supervision. criminal and domestic violence casl".'S. The two case 

types which cany jail lime are the criminal and domestic violence C3SCS. We extracted the 

criminal anu domestic violence cases h:mdled by the Kayenta and Tuba City District Courts from 

2008 (0 2014. The Kayenta Court had the lowest c:lscdoad in 2013 with only 1,294 C:lses and the 

peak year in 2009 with 1,753 C:lSCS. The Tuba City District courts lowest caseloo.d WIlS reported 

in 2013 with 965 cllses tmd their peak year in 2008 with 4,034 cases. Exhibit 26. A lilctor 

alTecting the decrease in Tuba City's c3seload is Ih:1.I the number of prosecutors employed by thc 

Navajo Nation also decreased beginning in 2011. 

Judges alTect the jail oct:upancy mle by if and whether they impose inc.:r.rceral;on as a sentence or 

they order other kinds of sentences such as prob31ion or community service. Prosecutors and 

N3vajo district court judges also =ive daily serving rosters from the local jail. Serving rosters 

infonn proseculOrs :lnd judges every weekday morning thc number of inmates currently in the 

local jllil. This mellns that knowing the eurren! jail occup3ncy rate, prosecutors nuy move for 

and judges m3Y elect to order prob:ltion or community service for less serious crimirml 

convictions. Agoin, had jail cilpilcity been gre3ter, judges would likely order incarceration for 

more convicted persons. 

DOC prepmed II chart that shows the average number of inmates actually in jail every day for the 

period January.June 2015. E .... hibit 27. To calculate the averages, DOC used the Inmllte 

Receiving Roster for Kayenta and the [nmate Serving Roster for Tuba City. Each chart shows 

the average per month. Kayenta's average number of inmotes in jail day-to.day is 16. Tub3 

City's 3ver:lge number of inmates in j3il day· to-day is 66. This chilrt provides a truer picture of 

the numbers o f persons actu311y in j3il in Kaycnta 300 Tuba City. The BIA's DOMER shows 

only the number injail on the last dilY ofltH: month and new bookings per month. New bookings 

st3tistics indicate the numbt."!" booked into jail e3ch day, but it does not rellcct the number 

uctually in jail on a sivcn d3Y. 

TIte 3hove discussion clcarly indic3tes that thc numbers of persons actually held in Nllvajo jails 

is less Ihlln the number that would be detained had jail capacity been greater. In Olher words, 

there is alre3dy a need for larger jail capacities. The construction of a 132-bed lileility in Tuoo 

City and an 80·bed facility in Kayenl3 will provide for not only current jail space need but for 

jail space IlI:Cd lor severnl year.> into the future. II is beller for the Navajo Nation to h3ve 13rget 

jail c3pacity in these new facililies rather than having 10 fund and construct larger facilities in 

live yC3rs' time. 

At the outset or these construction projects, DOC under.>tood there would be 3n increllsed need 

for additional personnel 3nd operntion 3nd mainten3nce ("O&M") costs for the new facilities. 

" 

40
 
o 

o 

o 

DOC understands thai Ihe I1IA/OJ5 will not be able to provide full funding lor all FTEs and 

Q&M needed to fully opemtes the new thcilitics. However, BJAJOJS informed DOC they would 

provide $5.00 per SF ror O&M. and as furnls become available, they would provide limited 

funus l'hr FTEs. DOC hns initiated .. ltemalive funding approaches for more FTEs. One 

approach is working lVith the Navajo Department of Work Force Development Program. whil:h 

has ht,;cn providint; up 10 $400,000 a year lor Work Force participants 10 Ir.lin as corrections 

o/liccrs. A S\.'Cond <lpproach is to reach an agrccrncnl with IlINOJS lor DOC to lease jail bt:d 

.~paL'CS tn lhl: HIA~Jpcrntcd tribal detention operations. One long tenn approach is \0 introduce 

kgislalion that would dmrge jail occupancy Icl!S. The other long !cnn approach is that OflCC 

justice center facilities havc been completcd across the Navajo Nation, the Special Revenue Tax 

Fund fundin!; these facilities coufd be convened ror Q&M for the new facilities. 

" 

41
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX 5 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
 

ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF ACTIONS
 

NECESSARY TO RESOLVE THE REPORT
 

The Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) 

provided a draft of this audit report to the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) and the 

Navajo Division of Public Safety (NDPS) for review and official comment. OJP’s 

response included statements from its Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). The 

Navajo Nation provided the response for the NDPS because three different Navajo 

Nation programs were involved in management of the audited grants: the 

Department of Corrections (DOC) within NDPS; the Office of the Controller (OOC) 

within the Navajo Nation Division of Finance; and the Navajo Nation Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). The OJP response is incorporated in Appendix 3 

and the Navajo Nation response is incorporated in Appendix 4. The following 

provides the OIG analysis of the responses and summary of actions necessary to 

resolve the report. 

Recommendation: 

1.	 Ensure that NDPS implements a process to verify that recipients of 

DOJ funds are not suspended or debarred. 

Closed. OJP agreed with the recommendation, and stated that NDPS had 

provided written procedures to ensure that recipients of DOJ funds are not 

suspended or debarred. 

The Navajo Nation stated it concurred with the recommendation, and 

provided a new DOC Policy Memo with procedures to verify that recipients of 

DOJ funds are not suspended or debarred. We reviewed the memo and 

determined it adequately addressed our recommendation. 

2.	 Remedy $656,921 in unsupported questioned costs for Grant Number 

2009-ST-B9-0089. 

Resolved. OJP agreed with the recommendation, and stated that it would 

coordinate with NDPS to remedy the $656,921 in unsupported questioned 

costs. 

The Navajo Nation stated it partially concurred with the recommendation. 

The Navajo concurred with two questioned expenditures; one for $34,034 

and one for $36,387 for a total of $70,421. The Navajo Nation stated that it 

will make accounting transfers to address questioned amounts. There were 

three questioned expenditures that the Navajo Nation did not concur with; 

one for $4,930, one for $189,259, and one for $392,311, for a total of 

$586,500. For each of the expenditures with which the Navajo Nation did 

42
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

not concur, the Navajo Nation provided explanations and documentation. We 

reviewed the documentation and determined that it was adequate to remedy 

two of the questioned expenditures, in the amount of $4,930 and $189,259. 

The final expenditure was for $392,311 in unsupported furniture expenses. 

The total cost of furniture in the pay application was $769,234 including 

retainage and taxes. We reviewed the supporting documentation and found 

a worksheet submitted with the pay application that stated $392,311 

(51 percent of the pay application total) in furniture costs should be charged 

to the Recovery Act grant. Also, included with the pay application 

documentation were exact costs, not including retainage and taxes, for the 

furnishings installed in the law enforcement building ($224,986), courts 

building ($222,660), and the detention building ($293,432). Only detention 

building costs were allowable to be charged to the grant, and the pay 

application evidences that those costs totaled 39 percent of the total, not 

51 percent. The Navajo Nation provided an explanation, a worksheet, and 

invoice and accounting documentation. However, the pay application 

amounts did not match the worksheet amounts and, therefore, still do not 

adequately support the allocated furniture amount charged to the grant. 

This recommendation can be closed when we receive adequate 

documentation to support the $462,732 questioned for the three remaining 

unsupported expenditures. 

3.	 Remedy $2,554,924 in unallowable questioned costs for Grant 

Numbers 2009-ST-B9-0089 and 2009-ST-B9-0100. 

Resolved. OJP agreed with the recommendation, and stated that it would 

coordinate with the NDPS to remedy the $2,554,924 in unallowable 

questioned costs. 

The Navajo Nation stated it partially concurred with the recommendation. 

For Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089, the Navajo Nation did not concur with 

our finding of $528,082 in unallowable court relocation costs, and provided 

an explanation that the relocation costs were not charged to the grant. We 

reviewed the documentation submitted with Navajo Nation’s response and 

determined it showed the court relocation expenses and included an 

allocation to the grant and to a non-grant account, but did not prove that the 

court relocation expenses were charged to the non-grant account. 

Therefore, we determined the documentation provided was not adequate to 

remedy this questioned cost. 

For Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089, the Navajo Nation partially concurred 

with our finding of $815,428 in 21 non-grant expenditures that were charged 

to the grant. The Navajo Nation concurred with two expenditures, one for 

$27,276 and one for $121,805, totaling $149,081 in unallowable 

expenditures for the Crownpoint project that were charged to the grant. The 

Navajo Nation stated that it will make an accounting transfer to move these 

expenditures from Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089 to the appropriate 

43
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

non-grant account. The Navajo Nation partially concurred with our finding of 

the remaining 19 non-grant expenditures totaling $666,166. For 17 of these 

19 non-grant expenditures, the Navajo Nation agreed the expenses, totaling 

$628,178, were inappropriately transferred to the grant account. For one of 

the two remaining non-grant expenditures, totaling $27,012, the Navajo 

Nation agreed that the funds should be transferred to a non-grant account, 

but believed the amount should be $25,179 rather than $27,012. The 

Navajo Nation did not provide any documentation to support the 

$1,833 difference. The Navajo Nation stated that it will make accounting 

transfers to the appropriate non-grant account for the 18 non-grant 

expenditures. For the remaining expenditure, in the amount of $10,977, the 

Navajo Nation stated no action was required as it was not charged to the 

ARRA account. For that expenditure, the Navajo Nation provided an 

accounting document that showed only $31,822 of the $50,793 invoice was 

charged to the grant on July 2, 2012. However, the document also stated 

that the invoice was underpaid by $18,972 due to insufficient funds for the 

Tuba City project; that amount (which included the $10,977 questioned 

expense) was subsequently paid and charged to the grant on October 9, 

2012. Therefore, this expenditure is questioned as unallowable. 

For Grant Numbers 2009-ST-B9-0089 and 2009-ST-B9-0100, the Navajo 

Nation partially concurred with our findings of $1,211,594 in expenditures 

that were charged to the grants prior to receipt of environmental clearance 

from BJA. The Navajo Nation stated that it attended grant management 

seminars and understood that grant funds could be obligated and expended 

prior to environmental clearance, if the funds were expended for activities 

that did not “break ground.” However, according to the grant special 

conditions, the recipient could not obligate, expend, or draw down any funds 

until the program office has verified that all necessary environmental impact 

documentation had been submitted to the program office. The Navajo Nation 

stated it will request that BJA review and provide retroactive approval of the 

expenditures that occurred prior to receipt of environmental clearance. 

This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation
 

demonstrating that the $2,554,924 of questioned costs for unallowable
 

expenditures charged to Grant Numbers 2009-ST-B9-0089 and
 

2009-ST-B9-0100 have been appropriately remedied.
 

4.	 Remedy $16,669 in unallocated matching costs for Grant Number 

2009-IP-BX-0074. 

Resolved. OJP agreed with the recommendation, and stated that it would 

coordinate with NDPS to remedy the $16,669 in unallocated matching costs 

charged to Grant Number 2009-IP-BX-0074. 

The Navajo Nation stated it concurred with the recommendation and had 

initiated a waiver request, but it was never submitted. We reviewed a copy 

44
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of that request during our fieldwork. The Navajo Nation stated it will ask BJA 

for a retroactive waiver of the match requirement for this grant. 

This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation that the 

match requirement for this grant has been remedied. 

5.	 Ensure NDPS meets the match requirement for Grant Number 

2009-ST-B9-0100 by the end of the grant. 

Closed. OJP agreed with the recommendation, and stated that it would 

coordinate with NDPS to ensure that the matching requirement was met for 

Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0100. 

The Navajo Nation stated it did not concur with the recommendation because 

the Navajo Nation has already met the match requirement. The Navajo 

Nation provided accounting documentation to support that $3,517,253 was 

transferred to the grant from a non-grant account. We reviewed the 

documentation and determined it adequately addressed our 

recommendation. 

6.	 Remedy $535,545 in funds to better use associated with unexpended 

grant funds for Grant Numbers 2008-IP-BX-0036 and 

2009-ST-B9-0089. 

Closed. OJP agreed with the recommendation, and provided documentation 

showing that it deobligated $9,620 in undrawn funds for Grant Number 

2008-IP-BX-0036 on June 17, 2015, and $525,925 in undrawn funds for 

Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089 were deobligated on June 23, 2015. 

The Navajo Nation stated it concurred with the recommendation. For Grant 

Number 2008-IP-BX-0036, the Navajo Nation stated that there was an 

unused balance of $9,620, and that all goals and objectives of the grant were 

completed. For Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089, the Navajo Nation stated 

that there was an unused balance of $525,925, and that DOC would submit 

documentation to OOC to transfer funds for the grant account as appropriate. 

However, OJP deobligated the undrawn funds for this grant on June 23, 

2015; therefore the Navajo Nation could not draw down the unused balance. 

We reviewed the documentation provided by OJP and determined it
 

adequately addressed our recommendation.
 

7.	 Ensure that NDPS implements a process to submit FFRs that 

accurately reflect expenditures for each reporting period. 

Closed. OJP agreed with the recommendation, and stated that NDPS had 

provided written procedures to ensure that future FFRs accurately reflect 

expenditures. 

45
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Navajo Nation stated it partially concurred with the recommendation, 

and provided an explanation and documentation of the processes by which it 

prepares FFRs, and for monitoring and oversight of the Navajo Nation’s grant 

programs. We reviewed the documentation provided and determined that it 

adequately addressed our recommendation. 

8.	 Remedy $290,116 in unallowable expenditures associated with 

unnecessary planning grants for Grant Numbers 2008-IP-BX-0036 

and 2009-IP-BX-0074. 

Unresolved. OJP and the Navajo Nation disagreed with the recommendation 

and stated that the planning grants were necessary for design and planning 

for Dilkon and Kayenta correctional facilities. Both OJP and the Navajo 

Nation provided several reasons for disagreement, which are analyzed 

separately later in this section. 

In summary, we reviewed explanations and documentation from OJP and the 

Navajo Nation and sustain the recommendation based on the fact that 

Navajo Nation was awarded the grant to develop plans for regional 

correctional facilities in Tuba City and Kayenta, although a detailed plan 

already existed, which Navajo Nation used as a technical guide in 

constructing other prison facilities. Specifically and as discussed in our audit 

report, the Navajo Nation’s March 2007 master plan was intended to address 

justice system needs for locations across the Navajo Nation, including Tuba 

City, Dilkon, and Kayenta. The master plan was created using districtspecific site information, population data, and input from justice system 

stakeholders. The master plan contained detailed data for each location, 

including construction budgets and broad facility purposes, such as 

detention, courts, and police, as well as individual facility needs, including 

number of inmate beds, square footage of specific rooms, and even 

requirements as specific as beverage station and refrigerator sizes. The 

master plan also included designed prototypes and options for developing the 

facilities. As a result, it was readily usable as a design plan for the Tuba City 

and Kayenta correctional facilities built between 2010 and 2015, particularly 

when Navajo Nation used the master plan for just that purpose when building 

new justice centers at Crownpoint and Chinle starting in 2010 and still 

ongoing for Chinle. Crownpoint was built at the same time as the Tuba City 

facility by the same general contractor. 

Additionally, we found that the Kayenta planning grant application was 

submitted on March 3, 2009, to develop plans for a correctional facility in 

Kayenta. Less than two months later, on May 3, 2009, the Navajo Nation 

submitted an application for Recovery Act funds to construct a correctional 

facility. As a Recovery Act award, the project was “shovel ready” meaning 

construction could begin within 180 days and, according to the Navajo 

Nation’s submitted timeline, construction would begin in February 2010. In 

the Recovery Act application, the Navajo Nation stated that it had already 

funded planning portions of the Kayenta project to complete site evaluations, 

46
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

assessments, and architectural design services and that the project was 

ready to move into construction. Because planning was already complete 

based on the statements made by the Navajo Nation in the application for 

Recovery Act construction funds, funds for the planning grant were not 

necessary. This is further demonstrated by the fact that in June 2010 the 

Navajo Nation attempted to repurpose these planning grant funds, which OJP 

denied. In this June 2010 request, the Navajo Nation was requesting to use 

the planning grant funds for the development of policies, procedures, and 

training for Navajo Nation corrections personnel as they transition into the 

new facility, which OJP determined was not within the CSCATL Program 

objectives. The Navajo Nation then submitted a project extension for the 

planning grant to “enhance the current master plan for the Kayenta 

community.” Since the master plan was already complete in March 2007, 

these funds were not necessary for the Navajo Nation and could have been 

awarded to another applicant. 

For the Tuba City planning grant, the Navajo Nation submitted the grant 

application on June 25, 2008, to develop plans for a correctional facility in 

Tuba City. The grant was awarded on September 15, 2008. Less than a 

year later, and before any of the planning grant funds were spent, the 

Navajo Nation submitted an application on April 29, 2009 for Recovery Act 

funds to build a correctional facility. The application for the Recovery Act 

funds stated that the March 2007 master plan included land withdrawals, site 

assessments, and evaluations. Additionally, as a Recovery Act award, the 

project was “shovel ready” meaning construction could begin within 180 days 

and, according to the Navajo Nation’s submitted timeline, construction would 

begin in February 2010. Again, because planning was already complete in 

order to proceed to construction, funds for the planning grant were not 

necessary. This is further demonstrated by the fact that Navajo Nation 

attempted to repurpose the funds in June 2010 for the development of 

policies, procedures, and training for Navajo Nation corrections personnel as 

they transition into the new facility. OJP determined this purpose was not 

within the CSCATL Program objectives, and therefore denied that request. 

However, Navajo Nation submitted another request to repurpose the 

planning grant funds in November 2011 stating that “the DOC has not been 

able to use the funds allocated for the Tuba City Multi-Purpose Justice Center 

due to plans being near complete when the planning funds were allocated in 

September 2008.” This scope change was approved by OJP, although it is 

clear that the original purpose for the grant was no longer applicable since 

the master plan was already complete in March 2007. We determined that 

the Navajo Nation substantially relied on the master plan for planning 

purposes. As a result, other applicants that could have used the funds for 

the designated program planning purposes were denied a funding 

opportunity so that Navajo Nation could receive the grants for that purpose, 

although it did not need funds for planning. 

Our detailed analysis of OJP’s and Navajo Nations’ individual bases for 

disagreement is discussed in the following sections. 

47
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Office of Justice Programs Response to Recommendation 8 

In its response, OJP stated it had performed another review of the 

applications for these grants, and determined the Navajo Nation had 

provided an outline to comprehensively plan for correctional facilities in Tuba 

City and Kayenta. We analyzed OJP’s statements and bases for 

disagreement identified in the following sections. 

OJP stated in its response that there was no mention in these 

applications that the Navajo Nation had produced a reservation-wide 

Public Safety Facilities Master Plan in 2007. 

However, our analysis indicated that even though the Navajo Nation did not 

mention the existing master plan to OJP in its applications for these grants, 

the Navajo Nation was aware when it applied for these planning grants that it 

had recently developed its own master plan for correctional facilities 

eliminating the need for the Navajo Nation to apply for these planning 

grants. As a result, we believe the Navajo Nation should have disclosed the 

existence of the plan in its application since it had direct implications for 

Navajo Nation’s need for additional funds for further planning. 

OJP stated in its response that it determined that the master plan 

provided an overall vision of correctional services throughout the 

Navajo Nation. 

We disagree and note that the Navajo Nation built correctional facilities at 

Crownpoint and Chinle following the parameters stated in the existing master 

plan. As a result, it is clear that this 2007 master plan was used by the 

Navajo Nation as actual technical guidance in at least one other completed 

construction project at Crownpoint, and therefore sufficed for more than just 

an overall vision. 

OJP stated that the master plan made recommendations and provided 

prototypes for the types of facilities and services that would best 

address the needs for the various judicial districts across the 

reservation. 

We agree, and conclude that this information supports our finding that these 

grants were unnecessary, as the existing master plan already addressed the 

needs and provided prototype design and space planning for each district, 

including Tuba City, Dilkon, and Kayenta. 

OJP stated in its response that it determined that the master plan did 

not eliminate the need for planning activities for site-specific 

construction...specific to the Tuba City (later Dilkon, Arizona) and 

Kayenta facilities. 

48
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Our analysis indicated that the Navajo Nation initially applied for Grant 

Number 2008-IP-BX-0036 for planning at Tuba City, Arizona. However, this 

grant was subsequently redirected to change the scope to planning at Dilkon, 

Arizona, because the Navajo Nation had funded planning that was already in 

progress at Tuba City. Because planning was already in progress at Tuba 

City, there was no need for the Navajo Nation to apply for the Tuba City 

planning grant. Additionally, for each of the three locations mentioned by 

BJA, the Navajo Nation had already developed its comprehensive master 

plan. Finally, as stated previously in this report, a non-DOJ-funded 

correctional facility was built at Crownpoint and is under construction at 

Chinle following the parameters stated in the Navajo Nation’s existing master 

plan. 

OJP stated that these grants were used to review the needs and 

modify the [Navajo Nation’s] master plan prototypes specific to each 

location and facility. 

This justification does not make these grants necessary, because the Navajo 

Nation’s master plan was used to construct facilities that were not funded by 

DOJ grants. As stated previously, the Navajo Nation built a correctional 

facility at Crownpoint and is building a facility at Chinle following the 

parameters stated in the Navajo Nation’s existing master plan. Additionally, 

both planning grants were subsequently repurposed due to the fact that 

planning had been completed for both facilities. The actions by the Navajo 

Nation expressly reflect the fact that there was no need for it to apply for the 

planning grants. 

Navajo Nation Response to Recommendation 8 

The Navajo Nation stated it did not concur with the recommendation. We 

analyze statements from the Navajo Nation’s response in the following 

sections. 

The Navajo Nation stated that each planning grant funded a needs 

assessment that focused on the local community (respectively, Dilkon 

and Kayenta) and was to provide information for use in designing and 

constructing a correctional facility at each location. 

For Grant Number 2008-IP-BX-0036, we note that the Navajo Nation 

originally applied for and was awarded a planning grant for the Tuba City 

location. The Navajo Nation then re-scoped the grant to Dilkon because, as 

stated in its scope change request, the “Navajo Nation Tax Fund had paid for 

most of the Tuba City facility planning.” The Navajo Nation also attempted to 

re-scope the Kayenta grant because it asserted that the planning was 

complete, which OJP denied because the change did not meet the intent of 

the CSCATL Program. Again, in our judgment, if the Tuba City facility 

planning was already being performed with Navajo Nation funds, there was 

no need to apply for this grant. More importantly, during our audit, Navajo 

49
 
 

 

 

 

 

Nation officials were unable to provide us with any planning documents for 

Tuba City other than the March 2007 master plan. 

The Navajo Nation stated that the March 2007 master plan was 

intended as a “vision” that addressed proposed justice system services 

for the entire Navajo Nation, by presenting prototypes to be adapted 

for each specific project. The Navajo Nation also stated that the March 

2007 master plan was created on a Navajo Nation-wide scale, while 

the planning grants were specific to Dilkon and Kayenta. 

We note that the master plan provided specific information for each project 

location, including Tuba City, Dilkon, and Kayenta. We also note that the 

Navajo Nation built a justice center at Crownpoint and is building a justice 

center at Chinle based on the parameters stated in the March 2007 master 

plan. For each location, the master plan stated construction budgets and 

facility purposes, such as detention, courts, and police, and also stated 

facility needs, including inmate beds, square footage of specific rooms, and 

requirements as specific as beverage station and refrigerator sizes. As the 

following excerpt from the 2007 March master plan shows, the plan itself 

stated that it was intended to address the needs of each District: 

This master plan has established size, concept, location and cost 

parameters for these projects. Cost is the only variable that can 

change with time. Therefore, it is necessary to proceed with the 

schedule. A notice to proceed will begin the rest of the schedule 

process, and assure adherence to the estimated cost of the 

projects. 

This document is the result of the several months long master 

planning effort, which included the following: 

•	 A series of Interactions between staff and administration 

of Courts, Corrections and Police from all Districts and 

Consultants 

•	 A study of existing reports, data, plans, and projections of 

growth across the Navajo Nation 

•	 A consensus building workshop that considered the 

individual needs of the Districts, as well as the Navajo 

Nation as a whole 

•	 A follow-up meeting with members of the steering 

committee and staff 

The result of these efforts was the development of a detailed 

prototypical Architectural Space Program for each component. 

This Space Program itemizes all functional components of the 

50
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

four buildings, as well as the detailed spaces to be included in 

each facility. These programs were used to estimate the total 

square footage necessary for the large/medium/small district 

facilities as well as the Navajo Correctional Rehabilitation 

Center. 

From the summary of the space required, budget cost data was 

applied assuming a February 2008 beginning construction date. 

Cost data was then applied to each component, and potential 

design and construction schedules were developed for each 

facility type. These prototypical programs will need to be 

adjusted during design to accommodate variations in staffing 

and operations for each District location. 

Site conditions and recommendations for specific sites within 

each District were evaluated concurrently, and the resulting 

findings are summarized in this report. 

To clarify, the prototypical adjustments refer to architectural designing which 

occurs as part of the construction grants, not planning grants. 

As a result, our opinion remains that these planning grants were unnecessary 

and unallowable. This recommendation can be resolved when we receive 

evidence that OJP has developed an adequate action plan to remedy the 

planning grants, or has completed other actions that address the 

recommendation. 

9.	 Remedy $32,034,623 in unallowable expenditures associated with 

excessive building sizes for Grant Numbers 2009-ST-B9-0089 and 

2009-ST-B9-0100. 

Unresolved. OJP partially agreed with the recommendation, and the Navajo 

Nation disagreed with the recommendation. OJP and the Navajo Nation both 

stated that they disagreed that the Navajo Nation constructed facilities of 

excessive size. Both OJP and the Navajo Nation provided several reasons for 

disagreement, which are analyzed separately later in this section. 

In summary, we reviewed explanations and documentation from OJP and the 

Navajo Nation, and sustain the recommendation based on the fact that 

Navajo Nation stated specific need for Tuba City and Kayenta through its 

applications for Grant Numbers 2009-ST-B9-0089 and 2009-ST-B9-0100, but 

was awarded approximately $32 million in excess of stated need. As a 

result, the Navajo Nation increased the size of both facilities without approval 

and built facilities much larger than its stated need or ability to operate. 

Specifically, the Tuba City and Kayenta facilities were built to accommodate 

132 and 80 adult inmates, respectively. However, according to data reported 

to the BIA by the Navajo Nation, Tuba City had a high of 49 prisoners in the 

facility on one day between 2008 and 2014, with a monthly average of only 

51
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17.6 inmates. For 2014, which was the first full year of operations at the 

new Tuba City facility, the maximum number of inmates was 36 while the 

average monthly occupancy was only 15.6. At Kayenta, there was a high of 

24 inmates between 2008 and 2014, and a monthly average of only 

9 inmates. The new Kayenta facility remains unopened. Based on the 

average monthly data reported to the BIA, the Tuba City and Kayenta inmate 

capacities are 749 and 885 percent larger than the need demonstrated. 

The Navajo Nation disagreed with this data and therefore offered alternative 

data in its response indicating an average number of 66 inmates for Tuba 

City and 16 inmates for Kayenta. We further analyze later in our response 

this latest data provided by the Navajo Nation, and although we discuss later 

our concerns with the relevance of the new data, even taking the new data at 

face value indicates that the Tuba City and Kayenta facilities were built 200 

and 500 percent larger than need, respectively. Further, construction of the 

Crownpoint facility was completed with 48 beds, construction is on-going for 

the facility at Chinle, and construction is still planned for the facility at 

Shiprock. As these facilities continue to open and become operational, the 

bed space needs stated by the Navajo Nation will be distributed among the 

new facilities, reducing actual need and occupancy in Tuba City and Kayenta. 

We also noted that, due to funding constraints at the BIA, the Navajo Nation 

does not have the resources to operate those facilities at capacity. In 

actuality, the Navajo Nation only has the staff to manage 2 of the 11 pods 

that can hold up to 24 inmates at the Tuba City facility, which is 82 percent 

below the intended capacity. The Kayenta facility remains unopened. As 

stated in our report, the BIA expressed concerns to the BJA and Navajo 

Nation regarding the large size of the facilities; however OJP stated in its 

response that it coordinated the building design with the BIA and that the 

BIA never expressed any concerns. Part of that discrepancy may have been 

related to the discrepancies in planned bed spaces, which OJP admits existed 

with regard to the March 2007 master plan and OJP’s knowledge of the 

project. We never received documentation approving the increased building 

size and bed spaces. While OJP indicates in its response that bed spaces did 

not affect the scope of the project, this also conflicts with information we 

received from an OJP official during our fieldwork, who stated such a change 

would require OJP approval. It also conflicts with the OJP Financial Guide, 

which states that a change in scope that requires a GAN includes a change in 

scope the affects the budget. As shown, the increase in bed space increased 

the total cost of the facilities by approximately $25 million at Tuba City and 

$8 million at Kayenta. This is a change in the budget that would, therefore, 

require a scope change. Additionally, such changes should have required 

approval as the additional space necessitates additional resources to manage 

larger capacities and should have been coordinated with the BIA. We believe 

that the lack of approvals and diligent oversight with regard to those changes 

may have contributed to the apparent miscommunications with the BIA, and 

thereby resulting in the Tuba City facility that only has resources to operate 

at 18 percent of the total capacity, as well as potential funding issues with 

52
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the Kayenta facility once it is operational. The Navajo Nation also reported 

that the Crownpoint correctional facility with 48 beds “is not receiving 

sufficient operation and maintenance funding and is not being used to its full 

capacity.” Therefore, none of the large correctional facilities are being used 

to their full potential, even the facility that was built with Navajo Nation’s 

funds to the size stated in the master plan. 

Finally, both OJP and Navajo Nation indicated that the size and capacities of 

the facilities are not excessive given Navajo Nation’s population, calls for 

police service, and general criminal justice needs. Specifically, Navajo Nation 

had decreased arrests due to crimes that were not being prosecuted as a 

result of jail space limitations. OJP stated in its response that in December 

2014, the agreement with the DOJ that prevented the Navajo Nation from 

housing inmates on its land, was lifted in part due to the Tuba City facility 

being constructed, as well as other facilities increasing the incarceration 

capacity. Despite these statements, the Navajo Nation stated it “might reach 

out to BIA to lease jail bed spaces.” The Navajo Nation having jail bed space 

to consider leasing demonstrates its facilities were built in excess of need. 

Also, the March 2007 master plan was a comprehensive plan for the entire 

nation that factored in needs of each locality, individually and collectively. 

Additionally, Navajo Nation could not provide any data to justify its prediction 

of an increasing jail population. All the data that was presented to us, 

including the BIA data discussed previously and our observations during 

fieldwork identifying only 2 of the 11 pods in use at Tuba City, supports the 

conclusion that the capacities of those prisons are unjustifiably in excess of 

the Navajo Nation’s need in those regions and of its ability to fully operate 

the facilities as constructed. 

The need for $70.2 million in grant funding should be justified and supported 

by factual data, which we have yet to be provided. Of particular concern are 

other tribes who likely had greater need and applied but were denied for 

these Recovery Act funds so that the Navajo Nation could receive 

$35.6 million in excess funding to build one facility that remains unopened, 

and another facility that is 82 percent vacant. With these excess funds, we 

estimate that at least three other Recovery Act projects could have been 

funded to address the justice system needs at other tribes. 

Our detailed analysis of OJP’s and Navajo Nation’s individual bases for 

disagreement is discussed in the following sections. 

Office of Justice Programs Response to Recommendation 9 

We analyzed OJP’s statements and basis for disagreement identified in the 

following sections. 

OJP stated in its response that the terminology used by the Navajo 

Nation for Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089 changed in terms of 

53
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

square footage and inmate beds, but that it was apparent to OJP that 

the Tuba City project was going to be around 132 beds. 

In its application for this grant, the Navajo Nation stated it would build the 

facility in accordance with the Navajo Nation’s March 2007 master plan. That 

master plan stated that a 48 bed facility was needed at Tuba City, and OJP 

officials previously informed us that they had received a copy of that master 

plan. Navajo Nation submitted progress reports to OJP throughout this 

grant, which showed gradual increases in inmate beds, from 48 to 132 beds. 

Navajo Nation did not provide documentation supporting the justification for 

a 275 percent increase in the number of inmate beds, and it is our continued 

opinion that the Tuba City corrections facility was built materially in excess of 

need. Additionally, on March 19, 2015, we asked OJP officials about the 

increase in beds, and they were unable to provide a reason why the bed 

count increased. During fieldwork, the BJA also informed us that a GAN 

should have been requested for increased inmate beds as this would be 

considered a change in project scope, which contradicted OJP’s response to 

this report indicating that such a GAN was not necessary because the size of 

the facility did not change. The OJP Financial Guide states that a change in 

scope that requires a GAN includes a change in scope the affects the budget. 

As shown, the increase in bed space increased the total cost of the facility by 

approximately $25 million. This is a significant change in the budget and 

would, therefore, require a scope change approved through a GAN. 

OJP stated in its response that for Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0100, 

the Kayenta project had increased in scope and bed size, which was 

approved by OJP through GAN 14 on August 7, 2012. 

OJP provided a copy of GAN 14, which the Navajo Nation requested and 

received to construct a support building with excess grant funds. In its GAN 

request, the Navajo Nation requested “a scope change to construct a Support 

building in addition to the corrections facility” and also mentioned as 

background information that “currently, with the programming changes 

instead of a 32-bed facility, NDOC will construct an 80 bed adult correction 

facility with a 4 bed temporary holding for Juvenile.” The expansion from 

32 to 80 adult beds was stated in the GAN request, but OJP did not state in 

its approval that the increase in number of inmate beds was approved. 

Specifically, OJP stated in GAN 14 that “the Navajo Department of 

Corrections has planned for a correctional facility, and in the planning it had 

some funding available for a program support building. Based upon this, the 

NDOC will be adding a support building to construct with funds. Therefore 

the scope of work will change.” Twelve additional pages of supporting 

documentation included in the GAN request only discussed the addition of a 

support building, and provided no justification for increasing the number of 

beds at Kayenta. We concluded that OJP’s approval of GAN 14 was also only 

for the support building. We were not provided documentation that the 

change in bed space from 32 to 80 adult beds was ever officially approved. 

Additionally, the Navajo Nation’s March 2007 master plan stated that only 

54
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

32 beds were needed at Kayenta. OJP did not request or provide any 

documentation supporting the need for the 250 percent increase in the 

number of inmate beds. 

OJP stated in its response that the Navajo Nation has a population of 

approximately 250,000 across an area the size of West Virginia, and 

that the addition of 212 inmate beds at Tuba City and Kayenta was 

therefore not excessive for that population. 

We note that Tuba City and Kayenta were not the only corrections facilities 

being built on the Navajo Nation, and neither location is centrally located for 

easy access from other districts. The Navajo Nation has received a number 

of DOJ grants in recent years for renovation of existing corrections facilities, 

and has also constructed a number of new corrections facilities with DOJ 

grants and non-DOJ funds. Specifically, a judicial complex including a 

48-bed corrections facility was built in Crownpoint, a judicial complex is 

currently under construction at Chinle, and a new facility is planned for 

Shiprock starting in 2016. According to the Navajo Nation’s March 2007 

master plan, each of those locations needed a 48 bed facility. In total the 

March 2007 master plan stated a need for a total of 13 new facilities in 

12 districts across the Navajo Nation: five Large District (48 beds each), 

three Medium District (32 beds each), four Small District (16 beds each), and 

one standalone Correctional Rehabilitation Center (388 beds). Per the 

master plan, the Tuba City and Kayenta corrections facilities were intended 

to serve the local needs for 2 of 12 districts across the Navajo Nation. 

Therefore, we believe the geographic size of the entire Navajo Nation and its 

overall population are not applicable to the size of this one facility, 

particularly since the master plan was designed to address overall need, and 

yet was not followed. This information does not justify such large increases 

in the size of these two facilities, particularly because it is apparent that 

Navajo Nation does not have the capacity to staff or the inmates to fill the 

facilities, which remains unopened at Kayenta and 82 percent vacant at 

TubaCity. 

OJP stated in its response that there was some discrepancy with the 

recommended size for the facilities in relation to the 2007 Master Plan, 

but no formal scope change was required since size requirements for 

Tuba City and Kayenta were not specific to inmate bed counts. 

It is our opinion that increases of 250 percent and 275 percent are significant 

with respect to the Navajo Nation’s stated need for the grant, as measured 

by bed space for inmates. While the Navajo Nation’s application documents 

for these grants did not specify bed counts for either location, each 

application stated that the Navajo Nation was applying for the grant based on 

the Navajo Nation’s March 2007 master plan, which made the master plan an 

inseparable part of each application. Each application stated specific square 

footages for each location, and the master plan stated those same square 

footages for each location. The master plan provided construction budgets 

55
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

that exactly matched the grant application amounts, and the master plan 

also stated the number of inmate beds needed for each location. The data 

we have been provided supports the need stated in the application for 

48-bed and 32-bed facilities. We have not been provided verifiable 

information that supports the combined 525 percent increase in incarceration 

capacity. While conducting fieldwork in February 2015, a NDPS official stated 

that the correctional facility sizes were increased after learning they would 

not be able to build the court and law enforcement building with the 

Recovery Act funding. Based on our audit results, we determined that the 

project scope at each site was expanded due to excess funds available 

through the grant, but not actual need for such a large facility. With these 

excess funds, at least three other Recovery Act projects could have been 

funded to address the justice system needs at other tribes. 

Navajo Nation Response to Recommendation 9 

The Navajo Nation also stated it did not concur with the recommendation. 

We analyze statements from the Navajo Nation’s response in the following 

sections. 

The Navajo Nation stated that the building sizes were not excessive, 

because each grant built a smaller square footage building than was 

stated in the grant application materials. 

The Navajo Nation does not discuss in its response that the grant 

applications were based on the total square footages stated in the March 

2007 master plan. For Tuba City, the master plan stated need for a 111,848 

square foot multi-purpose justice center, composed of a 48-bed correctional 

facility, a courthouse, and a police station, at a budget of $38,587,560. 

NDPS applied for and was awarded the grant based on that information, but 

then used the entire grant amount to build a 132 bed correctional facility, 

and used non-grant funds to build the court building and police station. As 

Table 4 in our report shows, the grant-funded correctional facility was 

increased from 52,790 square feet to 87,709 square feet, while the 

non-grant-funded buildings were constructed 2,724 square feet smaller than 

the master plan stated was needed. Contract documentation for Tuba City 

construction showed that the entire multi-purpose facility was initially going 

to be built in accordance with the master plan using a loan, but after the 

grant was awarded, the court and police buildings were built with the loan 

and the corrections space was built with the grant. Documentation also 

stated that the Tuba City corrections building was expanded in size because 

of receipt of the grant. 

For Kayenta, the master plan stated the need for a 91,036 square foot 

multi-purpose justice center, composed of a 32-bed correctional facility, a 

courthouse, and a police station, at a budget of $31,407,420. NDPS applied 

for and was awarded the grant based on that information, but then used the 

grant amount to build an 80-adult bed correctional facility and a police 

56
 
 

 

 

 

 

station, and then did not build the court component. As Table 5 in our report 

shows, the grant-funded correctional facility was increased from 47,727 

square feet to 54,455 square feet, the police station was increased from 

10,232 square feet to 13,427 square feet, and the 28,265 square foot judicial 

component was not built. The total square footage built with the grant was 

smaller than stated in the master plan because the judicial component was 

not built. Furthermore, despite the 21 percent reduction in square footage 

built, the Navajo Nation still spent the entire grant. 

The Navajo Nation also made the following assertions to justify the 

275 percent increase in inmate beds at Tuba City and the 250 percent 

increase in inmate beds at Kayenta. 

Grant Applications 

The Navajo Nation stated that while the grant applications mentioned 

the master plan, the applications did not specifically state the number 

of inmate beds needed. 

However, the program abstract, application narrative, and application budget 

for each construction grant specifically referenced the March 2007 master 

plan, which, again, makes the March 2007 master plan an integral and 

inseparable part of the Navajo Nation’s application. The application for each 

grant requested the exact dollar amount and square footage stated in the 

master plan for the entire justice complex at each site: $38,587,560 for 

111,848 square feet at Tuba City and $31,407,420 for 91,036 square feet at 

Kayenta. The Navajo Nation also provided a copy of the master plan to the 

BJA. As mentioned, once the Navajo Nation learned they could not build the 

entire justice complex with Recovery Act funds, the sizes of the correctional 

facilities were increased. The increases were not justified to or officially 

approved by OJP. 

Master Plan 

The Navajo Nation stated that the master plan prototypes were 

intended to be “adjusted during design to accommodate variations in 

staffing and operations for each District location.” 

A 275 percent increase in inmate beds at Tuba City and 250 percent increase 

in inmate beds at Kayenta, are, in our opinion, more than an accommodation 

of variations in staffing and operations. As we noted previously, the master 

plan included district-specific data and stakeholder input, and contract 

documentation specifically stated that the Tuba City facility was enlarged 

solely because the grant was received. 

57
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Increases in Number of Beds 

The Navajo Nation stated that inmate beds were increased as a result 

of meetings with the Navajo Nation, its project manager, and the 

general contractor. 

OJP officials told us that increases in bed counts would be considered a scope 

change which would have required a GAN, although this contradicts OJP’s 

current response to our report, which states no GAN was needed. According 

to the OJP Financial Guide, a change in scope that requires a GAN includes a 

change in scope the affects the budget. As shown, the increase in bed space 

increased the total cost of the facility by approximately $25 million. No GAN 

was requested for the Tuba City location related to increases in inmate bed 

counts or construction costs for the detention facility. The GAN submitted to 

add the support building stated funds were available to support the project 

scope change. As part of the GAN request, the Navajo Nation mentioned 

program changes from 32 beds to 80 adult beds. However, the Navajo 

Nation’s GAN request was only to add a support building. The supporting 

documentation provided was also only for the addition of the support 

building. Ultimately, OJP’s approval was also only for the support building. 

As such, the Navajo Nation never received formal approval from OJP to 

expand the bed count from 32 to 80 adult beds. 

After receiving the Navajo Nation’s response to the draft report, we 

conducted another review of the 2012 planning study provided by the Navajo 

Nation that stated 80 adult beds were needed at Kayenta. However, we 

found evidence to question the validity of the study. Specifically, Navajo 

Nation started re-design of the corrections facility and added the support 

building to the project scope in January and February 2011, respectively. 

Both events occurred over one year before the planning study was complete. 

Further, an NDPS official told us that the correctional facility sizes were 

increased due to the realization that the Navajo Nation could only build the 

correctional facility with grant funds rather than the entire justice complex. 

That information led us to scrutinize the study further, and we found that it 

showed a 4.4 percent decrease in Kayenta’s general population from 2000 to 

2010, yet projected a 1 percent increase from 2011 to 2021 “based on 

economic growth within Kayenta and anticipated migration”. However, no 

data was presented to support the 1 percent increase. We also found the 

study added 22 beds for “unmet needs as defined by the stakeholders,” an 

unsupported increase of nearly 38 percent. 

Rehabilitation Center 

The Navajo Nation stated that the size of the detention components in 

the March 2007 master plan was based on the planned construction of 

a larger Navajo Correctional Rehabilitation Center, and the Tuba City 

and Kayenta facilities were expanded because the Rehabilitation 

Center was not built. 

58
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

According to the master plan, the rehabilitation center would be a 388-bed 

correctional facility planned for a central location, and the master plan 

suggested Shiprock, New Mexico, as a possible location. Tuba City and 

Kayenta are not centrally located on the Navajo Nation—Kayenta is more 

than 100 miles west of Shiprock and Tuba City is about 175 miles west of 

Shiprock. Additionally, contract documentation specifically stated that the 

Tuba City facility was enlarged because the grant was received; there was no 

mention of using the Tuba City facility to eliminate need for the Rehabilitation 

Center in any project documentation. Finally, the BIA has stated that 

funding would not be available to fund the Tuba City facility in full. 

Currently, the Tuba City facility only has 10 correctional officers to operate 

the 132-bed facility. As a result, only 2 of the 11 pods can be used. 

According to a status report submitted to the Law and Order Committee of 

the Navajo Nation, the Crownpoint facility, which is a very large structure, “is 

not receiving sufficient operation and maintenance funding and is not being 

used to its full capacity yet, whereas another area could have benefited from 

the same type of facility and services.” As a result of building excessively 

large correctional facilities, the Navajo Nation does not have funding to fully 

operate any of the DOJ and non-DOJ funded buildings. 

Calls for Service and Other Statistical Data 

Prior to the issuance of this report in final, the Navajo Nation provided 

statistics in addition to calls for service and court case statistics from 2000 to 

2014 originally provided in the Navajo Nation’s response related to the Tuba 

City and Kayenta districts. The new statistics included calls for service, 

arrests, new bookings, and court case data. Upon further of review of this 

new data, we determined that it conflicted with the other data provided by 

the Navajo Nation in its response. Further, it conflicted with data that 

Navajo Nation reported to the BIA. As a result, we could not validate its 

reliability as Navajo Nation did not provide supporting documentation for the 

data. Additionally, the calls for service, arrest data, and new booking 

information does not necessarily correlate to bed space usage at either 

facility as some of these arrests and bookings could result in overnight stays 

in a temporary holding cells rather than longer-term stays which would use 

bed space. As a result, this type of data neither supports the Navajo Nation’s 

claims that the need for incarceration capacity is on an upward trajectory, 

nor adequately supports Navajo Nation’s contention that it needs such a 

large facility. As stated previously, all of the data we have been provided 

regarding actual inmate populations, as well as our own observations on site, 

evidence that the facilities were built in significant excess of actual need, at a 

significant cost to the government. As of 2014 the average daily population, 

which takes into account the length of stay, was 15.6 inmates for Tuba City 

and 10.9 inmates for Kayenta. The new data did not indicate that those 

figures were incorrect, and they were based on figures that the Navajo 

Nation reported to BIA directly. Further, these numbers do not support the 

Navajo Nation’s claim of increased need for jail space beyond the planned 

59
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

48 beds at Tuba City and 32 beds at Kayenta, regardless of how many calls 

for service, arrests, bookings, or court cases it has. 

Police Officer, Prosecutor, and Court Judgment 

The Navajo Nation stated that arrests and jail occupancy are
 

influenced by factors including judgment of police officers, prosecutors,
 

and judges, who can all be influenced by current jail occupancy.
 

However, those factors would have been addressed in the planning process 

for the March 2007 master plan. As a result, the Navajo Nation should have 

followed the capacities identified in the master plan rather than increasing 

capacities without support and express OJP approval for additional need. As 

the master plan stated: 

This document is the result of the several months long master 

planning effort, which included the following: 

•	 A series of interactions between staff and administration 

of Courts, Corrections and Police from all Districts and 

Consultants; 

•	 A study of existing reports, data, plans, and projections of 

growth across the Navajo Nation; 

•	 A consensus building workshop that considered the 

Individual needs of the Districts, as well as the Navajo 

Nation as a whole; and 

•	 A follow-up meeting with members of the steering 

committee and staff. 

Jail Occupancy 

DOC provided statistics which stated that for January through June 

2015, average daily occupancy for Kayenta ranged from 15 to 

17 inmates and average daily occupancy for Tuba City ranged from 

51 to 66 inmates. 

We note that during our February 2015 fieldwork, we observed only one cell 

in use during our tour of the old Kayenta jail, which had 2 cells that could 

hold up to 30 inmates. At the new Tuba City facility, DOC officials informed 

us that only 2 of the 11 pods were staffed with DOC personnel, thereby 

resulting in a total capacity of 24 inmates for the Tuba City facility. 

According to NDPS officials, one of the two pods in use at Tuba City housed 

inmates from the Kayenta district that would be move to the Kayenta facility 

once opened. Additionally, the new statistics provided by DOC did not break 

down which inmates were housed in cells with inmate beds designed to hold 

60
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

inmates for long-term stays and which inmates were housed in holding 

cells – larger rooms that accommodate large groups of people for short-term 

overnight or day-long stays. While we were onsite at Tuba City, we noted 

that most of the inmates were in holding cells, thereby leaving the prison 

82 percent vacant. The Navajo Nation also stated that the BIA data only 

shows data as of the end of the month and new bookings. However, we 

noted that the BIA data, which was provided to BIA by DOC, also included 

statistics about which day of each month was most crowded and how many 

inmates were housed on that day. As stated previously, the BIA data 

showed that Tuba City had a high of 49 inmates in the facility on one day 

between 2008 and 2014, with a monthly average of only 17.6 inmates. For 

2014, which was the first full year of operations at the new Tuba City facility, 

the maximum number of inmates was 36, while the average monthly 

occupancy was only 15.6. At Kayenta, there was a high of 24 inmates 

between 2008 and 2014, and a monthly average of only 9 inmates. The new 

Kayenta facility remains unopened. We note that even based on the Navajo 

Nation’s reported inmates, and assuming those inmates were housed in cells 

with beds, the Tuba City and Kayenta facilities were built 200 and 500 

percent larger than need, respectively. 

Leasing Jail Space 

The Navajo Nation stated that DOC might reach out to BIA to lease jail 

bed spaces for BIA-operated tribal detention operations. 

We note that this alternative demonstrates that the Navajo Nation has 

excess bed space, which is the result of building excessively large detention 

facilities. Additionally, it would turn at least part of the grant-funded facility 

into an operation that generates additional revenue from the federal 

government, which would require additional scrutiny and oversight. 

In conclusion, we reviewed explanations and documentation from OJP and 

the Navajo Nation, and determined that the correctional facilities at Tuba City 

and Kayenta were built in excess of the Navajo Nation’s stated need, and the 

facility sizes were expanded only because the Navajo Nation received the 

DOJ grants. Therefore, our opinion remains that the excessive building sizes 

were unnecessary. We also remain concerned the Navajo Nation will 

continue to experience difficulties with adequately staffing and filling the 

corrections facilities and with receiving sufficient funding from BIA to operate 

and maintain the facilities. 

This recommendation can be resolved when we receive evidence that OJP 

has developed an adequate action plan to remedy $32,034,623 in 

unallowable expenditures associated with the excess building sizes, or has 

completed other actions that address the recommendation. 

61
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General 

(DOJ OIG) is a statutorily created independent entity 

whose mission is to detect and deter waste, fraud, 

abuse, and misconduct in the Department of Justice, and 

to promote economy and efficiency in the Department’s 

operations. Information may be reported to the DOJ 

OIG’s hotline at www.justice.gov/oig/hotline or 

(800) 869-4499. 

Office of the Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Justice 

www.justice.gov/oig