Office of the Inspector General

U.S. Department of Justice

OVERSIGHT ★ INTEGRITY ★ GUIDANCE

Audit of the Office of Justice Programs

Office for Victims of Crime

Award to Pennsylvania State 

University,

State College, Pennsylvania 

Audit Division 20-021 January 2020
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Executive Summary 

Audit of the Office of Justice Programs Office for Victims of Crime Award to 

Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pennsylvania 

Objectives 

The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) awarded the 

Pennsylvania State University (PSU) a cooperative 

agreement totaling $4,143,143 for the Pennsylvania 

Sexual Assault Forensic Examination and Training 

Center. The objectives of this audit were to determine 

whether costs claimed under the award were allowable, 

supported, and in accordance with applicable laws, 

regulations, guidelines, and terms and conditions of the 

award; and to determine whether PSU demonstrated 

adequate progress towards achieving program goals and 

objectives. 

Results in Brief 

As a result of our audit, we concluded that PSU 

demonstrated adequate progress towards the award’s

stated goals and objectives. This audit did not identify 

significant concerns regarding PSU’s compliance with the

award conditions related to personnel and fringe benefit 

costs, supply costs, consultant and contractual costs, 

travel costs, and indirect costs. We also did not identify 

deficiencies with PSU’s compliance with the

requirements for drawdowns of federal funds and 

financial reporting. 

Recommendations 

Our report contains no recommendations. 

Audit Results 

The purposes of the OJP award we reviewed were to 

develop or enhance statewide telemedicine programs to 

deliver expert Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner guidance 

and support to medical professionals conducting sexual 

assault forensic exams in state correctional facilities, 

institutions of higher education, and rural and tribal 

communities. The project period for the award was 

from October 2016 through September 2020, and 

$1,530,135 had been drawn down as of March 2019. 

Program Goals and Accomplishments - We 

determined PSU demonstrated adequate progress 

towards the award’s stated goals and objectives. 

Costs Charged to the Award – We found that PSU’s 

personnel and fringe benefit costs for the periods we 

tested were allowable, supported, calculated accurately, 

properly allocated, and necessary to the award. 

Through our testing, we also determined that costs for 

supplies, consultants and contracts, and travel were 

allowable and supported. In addition, we found that 

PSU used the proper, approved indirect rates for each 

fiscal year in the award, used a correct indirect base, 

and calculated the indirect costs accurately. 

Financial Management – We did not identify 

significant deficiencies related to PSU’s process for 

developing drawdown requests, and we determined that 

quarterly and cumulative expenditures for the financial 

reports we reviewed matched PSU’s accounting records. 

i 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AUDIT OF THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS 

OFFICE FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME AWARD TO PENNSYLVANIA 

STATE UNIVERSITY, STATE COLLEGE, PENNSYLVANIA 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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

The Awardee ........................................................................................ 1 

OIG Audit Approach .............................................................................. 2 

AUDIT RESULTS............................................................................................. 3 

Program Performance and Accomplishments ............................................ 3 

Program Goals and Objectives ....................................................... 3 

Required Performance Reports ...................................................... 4 

Compliance with Special Conditions................................................ 4 

Award Financial Management ................................................................. 5 

Award Expenditures .............................................................................. 5 

Personnel and Fringe Benefits Costs ............................................... 6 

Supply Costs ............................................................................... 6 

Contractor and Consultant Costs.................................................... 6 

Travel Costs ................................................................................ 7 

Indirect Costs.............................................................................. 7 

Budget Management and Control ............................................................ 7 

Drawdowns .......................................................................................... 7 

Federal Financial Reports ....................................................................... 8 

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................... 9 

APPENDIX 1: OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY .................................. 10 

APPENDIX 2: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS 

RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT AUDIT REPORT ............................................. 12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AUDIT OF THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS OFFICE FOR 

VICTIMS OF CRIME AWARD TO PENNSYLVANIA STATE 

UNIVERSITY, STATE COLLEGE, PENNSYLVANIA 

INTRODUCTION 

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

completed an audit of a cooperative agreement awarded by the Office of Justice 

Programs (OJP) Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) to Pennsylvania State University 

(PSU) in State College, Pennsylvania. PSU received one award with a supplemental 

increase totaling $4,143,143, as shown in Table 1. 

Table 1 

Cooperative Agreement Awarded to Pennsylvania State University 

Award Number Program 

Office 

Award Date Project 

Period Start 

Date 

Project 

Period End 

Date 

Award 

Amount 

2016-NE-BX-K001 OVC 9/30/2016 10/01/2016 12/31/2017 $1,143,143 

Supplemental OVC 9/28/2017 10/01/2016 9/30/2020 $3,000,000 

Total: $4,143,143 

Source: OJP’s Grants Management System (GMS) 

OJP provided funding through Award Number 2016-NE-BX-K001 to develop 

or enhance statewide telemedicine programs to deliver expert Sexual Assault Nurse 

Examiner (SANE) guidance and support to medical professionals conducting sexual 

assault forensic exams in state correctional facilities, institutions of higher 

education, and rural and tribal communities. This program furthers the 

Department’s mission by providing 24-hour live access to expert examiners using 

cutting-edge audiovisual technology to walk a healthcare provider through a 

forensic medical examination. 

The Awardee 

PSU is the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s sole land-grant institution and 

its largest public university. PSU’s land-grant mission embraces teaching, research, 

and public service in order to support the citizens of the Commonwealth, 

collaborating with industrial, education, and agricultural partners to create, 

disseminate, integrate, and apply knowledge that is valuable to society. In Fiscal 

Year 2018, PSU had $927 million in total research support, of which $562 million 

came from federal sources. 

PSU’s Sexual Assault Forensic Examination Telehealth Center (SAFE-T 

Center) was launched as a solution to enhance access to high quality sexual assault 

care in underserved communities. When a sexual assault examination is performed 

at one of the partner hospitals, one of SAFE-T Center’s expert nurses participates 

through telehealth. The expert nurse appears on a screen and can talk to, and 

support, both the on-site nurse and the patient. Through PSU’s specialized digital 

telehealth technology, the nurse can also see the live exam in progress, ensuring 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

best practices, proper evidence collection, and a safe, helpful environment for the 

patient. 

OIG Audit Approach 

The objectives of this audit were to determine whether costs claimed under 

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

regulations, guidelines, and terms and conditions of the award; and to determine 

whether PSU demonstrated adequate progress towards achieving program goals 

and objectives. To accomplish these objectives, we assessed performance in the 

following areas of award management: program performance, financial 

management, expenditures, budget management and control, drawdowns, and 

federal financial reports. 

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

conditions of the award. The 2015 DOJ Grants Financial Guide and the award 

documents contain the primary criteria we applied during the audit. 

The results of our analysis are discussed in detail later in this report. 

Appendix 1 contains additional information on this audit’s objectives, scope, and 

methodology. 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Highlands Dubois 

UPMC Susquehanna Soldiers 

& Sailors Memorial 

~ 'i'JI PSU S.AFE-T Center 

' J.C. Blair Memorial 

AUDIT RESULTS 

Program Performance and Accomplishments 

We reviewed required performance reports, award solicitations, and 

supporting documentation, walked-through PSU’s web-based applications, and 

interviewed officials to determine whether PSU demonstrated adequate progress 

towards achieving program goals and objectives. We also reviewed progress 

reports to determine if the required reports were timely and accurate. Finally, we 

reviewed PSU’s compliance with special conditions identified in the award 

documentation. 

Program Goals and Objectives 

The overall performance goal of Award 2016-NE-BX-K001 was to manage a 

demonstration project that established a telemedicine center, staffed by highly 

trained and experienced Sexual Assault Examiners, to assist less experienced 

medical staff at underserved communities in conducting sexual assault forensic 

examinations. Specifically, PSU’s proposal was to locate the telemedicine center on 

the PSU campus in State College while providing training and equipment to three 

initial pilot site hospitals: J.C. Blair Memorial Hospital, Penn Highlands Dubois 

Hospital, and UPMC Susquehanna Soldiers and Sailors Memorial Hospital. 

Source: PSU SAFE-T Center Website 

The initial award of $1,143,143 supported planning activities and was 

completed in December 2017, 15 months after the project start date. The 

supplemental award of $3 million was to be used for implementing and operating 

the center, and this phase of the project is due to end in September 2020. 

As part of our audit, we interviewed officials, reviewed planning 

documentation, inspected equipment, reviewed operating agreements between PSU 

and partner hospitals, and were provided demonstrations of the web-based 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

computer applications created to facilitate communication between Sexual Assault 

Examiners and medical professionals at the three pilot hospitals. We also reviewed 

documentation related to forensic examinations provided to 10 sexual assault 

victims included in the program through December 2018. 

Generally speaking, we determined that PSU met the planning goals of the 

initial award and we did not find any indications that it was not making adequate 

progress towards achieving the implementation goals in the supplemental award. 

Required Performance Reports 

According to the 2015 DOJ Grants Financial Guide, funding recipients should 

ensure that valid and auditable source documentation is available to support all 

data collected for each performance measure specified in the program solicitation. 

In order to verify the information in the progress reports, we selected a sample of 

five performance measures from four reports submitted for the award. We then 

traced the items to supporting documentation maintained by PSU. 

Of the five claims we selected for accuracy testing, one did not match exactly 

with PSU's performance data. On its progress report, PSU claimed that its hospital 

partner sites averaged 10 policy and 3 documentation changes. We averaged the 

claims out to be 8.66 and 2.66. Although PSU's reported average of hospital 

partner site policy and documentation changes did not match exactly to PSU's 

performance data, we determined the differences did not significantly affect the 

usefulness of the reports. 

Compliance with Special Conditions 

Special conditions are the terms and conditions that establish specific 

requirements for the award recipient, and are included with the award. We 

evaluated the special conditions for the award and selected a judgmental sample of 

the requirements that are significant to performance under the award and were not 

addressed in another section of this report. We evaluated four special conditions 

for additional testing. As described in more detail below, we did not identify any 

instances where PSU violated these additional special conditions. 

According to 34 U.S.C. section 10231 and 28 C.F.R. Part 22, PSU was to 

comply with all confidentiality requirements applicable to collection, use, and 

revelation of data or information; and PSU was to submit a Privacy Certificate that 

is in accord with requirements of 28 C.F.R. Part 22. In addition, within 90 days of 

the date of award, PSU was to submit to OVC, for review and approval, its policies 

and procedures that it has established to maintain the confidentiality of victims' 

names, addresses, telephone numbers, or any other identifying information, and its 

policies and procedures relating to information sharing between partners. Under 

this special condition, PSU was to submit a signed, written certification that data 

privacy and sharing protocols comported with the confidentiality and privacy rights 

and obligations of federal law or the awardee’s jurisdiction's laws, court rules, or 

rules of professional conduct applicable to the work performed. We reviewed PSU’s 

submitted confidentiality policies and procedures and signed privacy certificates. 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We did not find any indications that PSU did not adhere to this special condition 

requirement. 

PSU was also required to comply with all applicable requirements (including 

requirements to report allegations) pertaining to prohibited conduct related to the 

trafficking of persons. We reviewed PSU’s policies and procedures related to 

background checks and reporting. We found PSU to be in compliance with this 

requirement. 

In another special condition (and Title VI), PSU was to certify that Limited 

English Proficiency (LEP) persons have meaningful access to the services under the 

award-funded program. In order to determine whether PSU’s program provided 

language assistance services, we reviewed the policies and procedures at PSU’s 

three hospital pilot sites. All three hospitals had taken reasonable steps to ensure 

that LEP persons had meaningful access to the program. As a result, we found PSU 

and its three hospital pilot sites to be in compliance with this requirement. 

For the final special condition we reviewed, PSU’s Point of Contact (POC) and 

Financial Points of Contact (FPOC) were to successfully complete an "OJP financial 

management and grant administration training" within 120 days after the date of 

the PSU's acceptance of the award. We reviewed PSU’s POC and FPOC training 

record. We found that PSU’s staff successfully completed required training within 

that timeframe. 

Award Financial Management 

According to the 2015 DOJ Grants Financial Guide, all awardee recipients and 

subrecipients are required to establish and maintain adequate accounting systems 

and financial records, and to accurately account for funds awarded to them. To 

assess PSU’s financial management of the award covered by this audit, we 

conducted interviews with financial staff, examined policy and procedures, and 

inspected award documents to determine whether PSU adequately safeguarded the 

award funds we audited. 

We also reviewed PSU’s Single Audit Reports for Years 2016 through 2018 to 

identify internal control weaknesses and significant non-compliance issues related 

to federal awards. Finally, we performed testing in the areas that were relevant for 

the management of this award, as discussed throughout this report. 

Based on our review, we did not identify significant concerns related to award 

financial management. 

Award Expenditures 

Between January 1, 2017, and March 31, 2019, PSU expended $1,143,143 in 

initial award funds and recorded $499,035 expenditures for its supplemental award, 

totaling $1,642,178. To determine whether costs charged to the award were 

allowable, supported, and properly allocated in compliance with award 

requirements, we tested a sample of transactions. We reviewed documentation, 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

accounting records, and performed verification testing related to award 

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

Personnel and Fringe Benefits Costs 

During our audit period, PSU charged $653,918 in personnel costs and 

$229,753 in fringe benefit costs to the award, totaling $883,671, or 54 percent of 

the total initial and supplemental award. Within the personnel category charged to 

the award, PSU included examiners, investigators, project managers, a clinical 

nurse and training coordinator, and support staff. As part of our sample, we 

reviewed 22 payroll transactions totaling $33,677, which included salary 

expenditures for 2 non-consecutive pay periods to determine if labor charges were 

allowable, supported, calculated accurately, properly allocated, and necessary to 

the award. We also reviewed PSU’s fringe benefit expenditures totaling $192,434 

for FYs 2017-2019 (up to December 2018) to determine if fringe benefits were 

allowable, supported, calculated accurately, properly allocated, and necessary to 

the award. 

Based on our review, we found that PSU’s personnel and fringe benefit costs 

for the periods we tested were allowable, supported, calculated accurately, properly 

allocated, and necessary to the award. 

Supply Costs 

In its award budget, PSU included costs for supplies that was to include 

equipment to be used in the SAFE-T Center and pilot site hospitals. As of March 31, 

2019, PSU charged $153,069 in supplies to the initial and supplemental award. 

During our audit, we tested a sample of nine transactions for lens development, a 

medical exam table, medical and laboratory supplies, and computer equipment 

totaling $79,418 from Award Number 2016-NE-BX-K001.1 We also reviewed PSU’s 

procurement practices it applied to acquire these supplies. We determined the 

costs were allowable and appropriately supported. 

Contractor and Consultant Costs 

During our audit period, PSU charged $67,778 in contractor and consultant 

costs to the initial and supplement award. As part of our sample, we reviewed five 

transactions totaling $34,288, which consisted of payments to three consultants 

and one contractor, to determine if the charges were allowable, supported, 

calculated accurately, properly allocated, and necessary to the award. In our 

sample, we found these services were generally for training and advisory board 

review, program coordination, marketing, design, and consulting. We also 

reviewed PSU’s procurement practices it applied to acquire these services. Based 

1 PSU created custom technological solutions to achieve a sustainable price in order to place 

equipment in the field. PSU could not find a lens on the market that met its specifications and 

required an engineer to design a lens that could meet their needs. During forensic exams, these lens 

are used to assist in the colposcopy. 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on our testing of the consultant and contractor expenditures, we determined the 

expenditure samples reviewed were allowable and supported. 

Travel Costs 

Travel expenses are allowable costs when conducting award-related business 

as long as the expenses are reasonable and in accordance with a recipient’s

established travel policy. If no travel policy exists, a recipient must comply with 

Federal Travel Regulations. As of March 31, 2019, PSU charged $56,348 in travel 

costs to Award Number 2016-NE-BX-K001. The travel costs were for conference 

attendance, travel to advisory board meetings, and travel to examiner training. 

During our audit, we tested a sample of 11 transactions totaling $12,097. We 

determined the costs were allowable and supported. 

Indirect Costs 

Indirect costs are expenses of an organization that are not readily assignable 

to a particular project, but are necessary to the operation of the organization and 

the performance of the project. Non-Federal entities can use an indirect cost rate 

that was approved by a Federal awarding agency for all Federal awards provided 

the rate is current and based on an acceptable allocation method. PSU had 

approved indirect cost rates for the award in our audit. As of March 31, 2019, PSU 

charged $480,273 in indirect costs to the award. We determined that PSU used the 

proper approved rates for each fiscal year in the award, used a correct indirect 

base, and calculated the indirect cost accurately. 

Budget Management and Control 

According to the 2015 DOJ Grants Financial Guide, an award 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 award recipient must initiate a Grant 

Adjustment Notice for any budget modification that reallocates funds among budget 

categories if the proposed cumulative change is greater than 10 percent of the total 

award amount. 

We compared award expenditures to the approved budgets to determine 

whether PSU 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. 

Drawdowns 

According to the 2015 DOJ Grants 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 award, recipients have drawn down funds in 

excess of federal expenditures, unused funds must be returned to the awarding 

agency. According to PSU officials, drawdown requests were made monthly on a 

reimbursement basis. As of March 2019, PSU drawdown requests totaled $1,530,135. 

To assess whether PSU managed award receipts in accordance with federal 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

requirements, we compared the total amount reimbursed to the total expenditures 

in the accounting records. 

During this audit, we did not identify significant deficiencies related to PSU’s

process for developing drawdown requests. 

Federal Financial Reports 

According to the 2015 DOJ Grants Financial Guide, recipients shall report the 

actual expenditures and unliquidated obligations incurred for the reporting period 

on each financial report as well as cumulative expenditures. As of December 31, 

2018, PSU submitted nine Federal Financial Reports (FFR) for Award Number 

2016-NE-BX-K001. To determine whether PSU submitted accurate FFRs, we 

compared two reports to PSU’s accounting records. Based on our testing, we 

determined that quarterly and cumulative expenditures for the reports reviewed 

matched the accounting records. We also determined that the indirect expenses 

were calculated accurately. 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

As a result of our audit testing, we concluded that, PSU generally managed 

the award that we reviewed appropriately, and demonstrated adequate progress 

towards achieving the award’s stated goals and objectives. We found that all 

tested expenditures were allowable, supported, and in accordance with applicable 

laws, regulations, guidelines, and the terms and conditions of the cooperative 

agreement. Therefore, we make no recommendations. 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX 1 

OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY 

Objectives 

The objectives of this audit were to determine whether costs claimed under 

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

regulations, guidelines, and terms and conditions of the award; and to determine 

whether the awardee demonstrated adequate progress towards achieving the 

program goals and objectives. To accomplish these objectives, we assessed 

performance in the following areas of award management: program performance, 

financial management, expenditures, budget management and control, drawdowns, 

and federal financial reports. 

Scope and Methodology 

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 Program Office for Victims of Crime 

cooperative agreement awarded to the Pennsylvania State University (PSU) under 

the Pennsylvania Sexual Assault Forensic Examination and Training Center. As of 

March 31, 2019, PSU had drawn down $1,530,135 of the total funds awarded. Our 

audit concentrated on, but was not limited to September 30, 2016, the award date 

for Award Number 2016-NE-BX-K001 through September 25, 2019, the last day of 

our audit work. Award number 2016-NE-BX-K001 was ongoing during our audit. 

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

be the most important conditions of PSU’s activities related to the audited award. 

We performed sample-based audit testing for award expenditures including payroll 

and fringe benefit, supplies, consultant and contractor, travel expenses, indirect 

cost as well as financial reports, drawdowns, special conditions, and progress 

reports. In this effort, we employed a judgmental sampling design to obtain broad 

exposure to numerous facets of the award reviewed. This non-statistical sample 

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

samples were selected. The 2015 DOJ Grants Financial Guide and the award 

documents contain the primary criteria we applied during the audit. 

During our audit, we obtained information from OJP’s Grants Management

System as well as PSU’s accounting system specific to the management of DOJ 

funds during the audit period. We did not test the reliability of those systems as a 

whole, therefore any findings identified involving information from those systems 

were verified with documentation from other sources. 

10 
 

 

 

 

We discussed our audit results with PSU officials throughout the audit and at 

a formal exit conference. We also provided PSU a draft of our report and allowed 

them an opportunity to respond, but PSU opted not to provide a written response. 

OJP provided a written response, which can be found in Appendix 2. 

11 
APPENDIX 2 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS 

RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT AUDIT REPORT 

12 

Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management 

Washington, D. C. 20531 

DEC 1 6 2019 

MEMORANDL'M TO: Thomas 0. Puerzer 

Regional Audit Manager 

Philadelphia Regional Audit Office 

Office of the Inspector General 

FROM: R~lphE.~~­ D1rec~~ 

SUBJECT: Response to the Draft Audit Report, Audit of the Office of Justice 

Programs, Office for Victims of Crime Award to Pennsylvania 

State University, State College, Pennsylvania 

This memorandum is in response to your correspondence, dated November 19, 2019, 

transmitting the subject draft audit report for Pennsylvania State University. The draft audit 

report does not contain any recommendations directed to the Office of Justice Programs (OJP). 

OJP has reviewed the draft audit report and does not have any comments. 

We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the draft audit report. If you have any 

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

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

cc: Katharine T. Sullivan 

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

Maureen A. Henneberg 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

for Operations and Management 

Le Toya A. Johnson 

Senior Advisor 

Office of the Assistant Attorney General 

Jeffery A. Haley 

Deputy Director, Audit and Review Division 

Office of Audit, Assessment and Management 
Darlene L. Hutchinson 

Director 

Office for Victims of Crime 

Allison Turkel 

Deputy Director 

Office for Victims of Crime 

Katherine Darke-Schmitt 

Deputy Director 

Office for Victims of Crime 

Kathrina S. Peterson 

Acting Deputy Director 

Office for Victims of Crime 

James Simonson 

Associate Director for Operations 

Office for Victims of Crime 

Ivette Estrada 

Grant Program Specialist 

Office for Victims of Crime 

Charlotte Grzebien 

Deputy General Counsel 

Office of the General Counsel 

Phillip K. Merkle 

Acting Director 

Office of Communications 

Leigh A. Benda 

Chief Financial Officer 

Christal McNeil-Wright 

Associate Chief Financial Officer 

Grants Financial Management Division 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

Joanne M. Suttington 

Associate Chief Financial Officer 

Finance, Accounting, and Analysis Division 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

13 
Aida Brumme 

Manager, Evaluation and Oversight Branch 

Grants Financial Management Division 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

Louise Duhamel 

Acting Assistant Director, Audit Liaison Group 

Internal Review and Evaluation Office 

Justice Management Division 

OJP Executive Secretariat 

Control Number IT20191120120854 

14 
 

 

 

-

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.

To report allegations of waste, fraud, abuse, or misconduct regarding DOJ 

programs, employees, contractors, grants, or contracts please visit or call the

DOJ OIG Hotline at oig.justice.gov/hotline or (800) 869-4499.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530 0001

Website Twitter YouTube

oig.justice.gov @JusticeOIG JusticeOIG

Also at Oversight.gov