Office of the Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Audit of the 

Office of Justice Programs’ 

Tribal Justice Systems Infrastructure 

Program 

Audit Division 17-10 January 2017 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                            

 

AUDIT OF THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS’ 

TRIBAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY* 

Violent crime rates in Indian country are more than 2.5 times the national 

rate and some reservations face more than 20 times the national rate of violence.1 

However, many tribal nations do not have the resources to develop the necessary 

correctional infrastructure. In some cases, jails have not been upgraded since they 

were built and lack sufficient staffing and funding to function safely and effectively. 

At the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) 

within the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) administers the Tribal Justice Systems 

Infrastructure Program (TJSIP), which provides grants that support planning, 

constructing, and renovating tribal justice facilities. BJA helps tribes conduct 

comprehensive justice system planning through two vehicles: (1) direct planning 

grants to recipients who are planning to construct or renovate correctional facilities; 

and (2) funding cooperative agreements with entities that provide training and 

technical assistance (T&TA) to recipients of BJA planning grants. From fiscal years 

(FY) 2009 through 2014, BJA awarded $275,960,760 in funds to support the TJSIP. 

While BJA is responsible for awarding grants to construct or renovate tribal 

justice facilities, responsibility for supporting, operating, and maintaining them 

generally falls to a different organization in an entirely separate agency, the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs (BIA) within the Department of Interior (DOI). Due to limited 

funding, BIA generally does not fund any corrections program in full. 

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted this audit to: (1) assess 

OJP’s management and oversight of the funding provided under the TJSIP, including 

the contracting activities of grantees; and (2) determine the extent of OJP’s 

cooperation and coordination with BIA to ensure efficient and effective correctional 

services in Indian country. The audit was supported by the results of five separate 

OIG audits of TJSIP grantees issued between December 2014 and November 2015.2 

Each of those audits found issues with respect to those specific TJSIP grants. 

Based on our review of TJSIP activities from FYs 2009 through 2014, the OIG 

concluded that coordination between OJP and BIA was not always effective, 

resulting in delays in the completion of TJSIP grants and grantees’ inability to 

* Redactions were made to the full version of this report for privacy reasons. The redactions 

are contained only in Appendices 4 and 5, OJP’s and Alpha Corporation’s responses, respectively, and 

are of individuals’ names. 

1 We use the term “Indian country” in this report because that is language used in 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1151 (2012). 

2 See Appendix 1 for specific details related to the five TJSIP audits of the: (1) Pueblo of 

Laguna, Laguna, New Mexico; (2) Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, Poplar, Montana; (3) Navajo 

Nation, Window Rock, Arizona; (4) National Indian Justice Center, Santa Rosa, California; and 

(5) Eight Northern Indian Pueblos Council, Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico. 

i 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

                                                            

 

 

operate and fully staff grant-funded facilities upon completion of construction. We 

also determined that inadequacies existed with OJP’s due diligence during the 

application process and oversight of the TJSIP grantees. This led to: 

(1) construction of excessively large facilities that were not aligned with the tribes’ 

documented needs; (2) unused planning products; (3) premature funding of 

construction before adequate planning was completed; (4) ineffective use of TJSIP 

funds; (5) conflict of interest issues between one of the TJSIP funded T&TA 

providers and TJSIP grantees; and (6) contract management issues. 

The coordination deficiencies we found between OJP and BIA resulted in 

three TJSIP-funded correctional facilities that could not be opened, or could only be 

partially opened, due to construction flaws or operations and maintenance funding 

issues involving BIA. These three facilities, which together cost nearly $22 million, 

remained non-operational or partially operational for over a decade after the initial 

awards were made, and for 3 or more years after the TJSIP grants were fully 

expended. We also found that OJP lacked a formal protocol with BIA that would 

help to promote the timely progression of TJSIP-funded facility construction through 

BIA’s design review and certificate of occupancy processes. 

We found that OJP failed to complete adequate due diligence during the 

awarding process, including awarding approximately $81 million in TJSIP grants 

without verifying the grantees’ stated needs for the grant funds. As a result, 

grantees constructed facilities that significantly exceeded planned and approved 

facility capacities, incarceration needs, or staffing requirements. One example of 

this was discussed in our prior report on the grants awarded to the Navajo Nation.3 

The application information provided by the Navajo Nation indicated a need for 

$38 million to build two correctional facilities, yet OJP ultimately awarded, and the 

Navajo Nation spent, $70 million on facilities far in excess of stated need and 

without documented justification for the additional funds. 

Also, related to OJP’s due diligence during the awarding process, we found 

that, despite BIA’s concerns that the tribe was building beyond its current capacity, 

OJP awarded the Nisqually Tribe $11 million to build a portion of a correctional 

facility intended to generate profit where up to 98 percent of the inmates were not 

subject to tribal jurisdiction. The use of funds to build the BJA-funded portion of 

the facility was not permissible per the grant solicitation since it was intended to be 

profit-generating and did not comply with the statutory authority of the TJSIP to 

build facilities that address violations of tribal civil and criminal laws. 

We also determined there were inadequacies with OJP’s post-award oversight 

and management of TJSIP grants. For example, as explained in our previous 

report, the Navajo Nation used the $32 million in awarded excess funds to 

3 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 Report GR-60-15-015 (September 2015). OJP disagrees with some of the conclusions 

from the OIG’s report, which questioned the excessively large facilities built by the Navajo Nation 

compared to the stated need. Consequently, two of the report’s recommendations concerning more 

than $32 million in questioned costs remain unresolved. 

ii 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

significantly expand the sizes of both correctional facilities. Throughout the award 

period, the Navajo Nation and one of OJP’s T&TA providers submitted 

documentation to OJP indicating the two projects were being expanded. In this 

audit, we found that OJP could not provide documentation indicating it was aware 

of the project increases or that it reviewed and approved the amended plans for 

expanded facilities that would justify changes in project sizes. Such significant 

project changes should have required approval as the added space necessitated 

additional resources to manage larger capacities and should have been coordinated 

with BIA. After constructing facilities at least 250-percent larger than the stated 

need, the Navajo Nation lacks sufficient resources to fully staff or operate either 

facility built with TJSIP grant funds. 

We also identified two issues relating to OJP’s current approach with the 

implementation of T&TA for the planning grants. First, OJP has not adequately 

defined the services that T&TA providers should provide, leading to potential 

overlap between the T&TA services and the services that TJSIP grantees contract 

for separately. Second, we found that conflicts of interest (COI) can arise because 

BJA allows T&TA providers to provide similar services directly to TJSIP grantees 

through separate contracts in addition to providing T&TA services to the same TJSIP 

grantees. For example, we determined that the TJSIP-funded T&TA provider, 

Justice Solutions Group (JSG), received separate TJSIP funds from a tribe to assist 

with the development of facility concept designs. Then OJP requested that JSG, as 

the T&TA provider, review and provide feedback on the very same designs it helped 

create. This situation raised questions about whether a COI existed since the same 

entity performed both functions. As a result of COI concerns, we questioned 

$842,879 in funds T&TA providers received from TJSIP grantees. 

We also believe a material cost savings to the government may be possible if 

OJP were to define T&TA services to include planning services that are currently 

provided through separate TJSIP grant-funded contracts. This would include 

clarifying that T&TA grants are intended to fund the completion of needs 

assessments and master plans, rather than just funding general assistance to tribes 

through the planning process. We estimate that had such a modification been in 

place during the period of our audit, it would have resulted in savings of over 

$3 million in FYs 2009 and 2010, and also could have helped to eliminate the 

potential for COIs. 

Finally, regarding contract oversight, we found that OJP paid $59,338 to 

Alpha Corporation (Alpha Corp), another TJSIP-funded T&TA provider, for work that 

was not in compliance with contract terms and conditions. 

This report makes 12 recommendations to improve OJP’s management and 

oversight over the TJSIP and coordination with BIA, and to address nearly 

$12 million in new dollar-related findings that are in addition to the dollar-related 

findings contained in our prior audit reports. 

iii 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

AUDIT OF THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS’ 

TRIBAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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

OIG Audit Approach ............................................................................. 7 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 9 

OJP Coordination with BIA................................................................... 10 

Design Review Process .............................................................. 10 

Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy .......................................... 12 

Operation and Maintenance of Completed Facilities ........................ 12 

Unopened Facilities ................................................................... 14 

OJP’s Due Diligence During Award Process ............................................ 17 

The Navajo Nation .................................................................... 17 

Nisqually Tribe ......................................................................... 20 

Tribe Number 4 ........................................................................ 25 

Nebraska Tribes ....................................................................... 26 

Pueblo of Laguna ...................................................................... 29 

OJP’s Oversight and Management of the TJSIP Program Post Award .......... 30
 

Navajo Nation Construction Grant Awards .................................... 30 

Tribe Number 9 ........................................................................ 36 

OJP’s Implementation of Services Provided by Training and Technical 

Assistance Providers.................................................................. 37 

Planning Grantee Training and Technical Assistance Providers ......... 37
 

Construction Grantee Training and Technical Assistance Provider ..... 49 

Recommendations ............................................................................. 53 

STATEMENT ON INTERNAL CONTROLS........................................................... 56 

STATEMENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS ......................... 57 

APPENDIX 1: OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY ................................. 58 

APPENDIX 2: SCHEDULE OF DOLLAR-RELATED FINDINGS ............................... 64 

APPENDIX 3: TJSIP RENOVATION AND CONSTRUCTION GRANTS AWARDED FROM 

FY 2007 THROUGH 2014 ..................................................................... 65 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
 
APPENDIX 4: OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS’ RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT AUDIT 

REPORT............................................................................................ 69 

APPENDIX 5: ALPHA CORPORATION’S RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT AUDIT REPORT 93 

APPENDIX 6: OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF 

ACTIONS NECESSARY TO CLOSE THE REPORT ..................................... 101 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
 
 

 

 

 

 

                                                            

 

AUDIT OF THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS’ 

TRIBAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM 

INTRODUCTION 

In recent decades, tribal nations have faced significant challenges in 

addressing public safety issues. Violent crime rates in Indian country are more 

than 2.5 times the national rate, and some reservations face more than 20 times 

the national rate of violence.4 However, many tribal nations do not have the 

resources to develop a robust and coordinated correctional infrastructure. 

Furthermore, many jails in Indian country have not been upgraded since they were 

built in the 1960s and 1970s. A 2011 evaluation by the Department of the Interior 

(DOI) Office of Inspector General found that many tribal jails remain in “egregious 

physical condition,” plagued by overcrowding and serious disrepair.5 Many lack 

sufficient staffing, training, and funding to function safely and effectively. 

Additionally, some tribal nations do not have sufficient alternatives to incarceration. 

At the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) 

within the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) has administered, since 1999, the Tribal 

Justice Systems Infrastructure Program (TJSIP), formerly the Correctional Facilities 

on Tribal Lands Program.6 Funding through the TJSIP 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. In 2010, the TJSIP was expanded to allow the use of funds to 

construct multipurpose justice centers that combine tribal police, courts, and 

corrections services. This funding also allows tribes to explore community-based 

4 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (2012) defines Indian country as: (1) all land within the limits of any 

Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the 

issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation; (2) all 

dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or 

subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state; and (3) all 

Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way 

running through the same. 

5 U.S. Department of the Interior Office of Inspector General, Bureau of Indian Affairs’ 

Detention Facilities, Report No.: WR-EV-BIA-005-2010 (March 2011). 

6 42 U.S.C. § 13709 (2012). The Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) of 2010 (Pub. L. 

No. 111-211) amends Section 20109 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 

(42 U.S.C. § 13709) by expanding the scope of the program. As the result of the TLOA, Violent Crime 

Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 funds may now be used to construct multipurpose justice 

centers that combine tribal police, courts, and corrections services. TLOA also emphasizes that funds 

should be used to develop correctional alternatives. Correctional alternatives may include day 

reporting centers, substance abuse treatment services, or transitional living facilities. To reflect the 

expanded scope of the Correctional Facilities on Tribal Lands Program as a result of the TLOA, BJA 

changed the name of the program to the TJSIP. Beginning in FY 2012, BJA received more flexibility in 

managing the TJSIP program, because the appropriations were no longer specifically tied to the 

underlying statute, 42 U.S.C. § 13709. Rather, a lump sum was made available for “assistance to 

Indian tribes.” Appropriations since then have retained this flexibility. The Corrections Program Office 

administered these grants until 2002, when it was absorbed within the BJA. 

1 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
alternatives to help prevent and control jail overcrowding due to alcohol and other 

substance abuse–related crime. The funding does not support the operations or 

maintenance costs of detention facilities. Figure 1 below depicts the geographic 

distribution of the TJSIP renovation and construction grants awarded from fiscal 

year (FY) 2007 through 2014. 

Figure 1 

Geographic Distribution of the 

TJSIP Renovation and Construction Grants Awarded from 

FYs 2007 through 2014
 

Note: The numbers in the chart correspond to awards made to each tribe. See Appendix 3 for 

details. 

Source: BJA 

BJA helps tribes conduct comprehensive justice system planning through two 

different assistance vehicles: (1) direct planning grants to recipients who are 

planning to construct correctional facilities; and (2) training and technical 

assistance (T&TA) provided for recipients of planning grants by T&TA providers, 

who BJA funds through separate cooperative agreements. The purpose of these 

2 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

                                                            

 

planning efforts is to determine correctional system needs as a first step to 

exploring the construction of new tribal correctional facilities associated with the 

incarceration and rehabilitation of juvenile and adult offenders. This planning 

process helps tribes conduct a communitywide assessment for the purpose of 

developing a comprehensive master plan for the design, use, capacity, and cost of 

adult and juvenile justice sanctions and services. The end result of the justice 

system planning process for tribes that receive planning grants is a master plan. 

The master plan may include recommendations for renovation/construction of 

correctional facilities, multipurpose justice centers, or correctional alternative 

facilities, including programming to meet the rehabilitative needs of offenders or 

implementing community-based correctional alternatives or reallocating existing 

resources to better serve the population.7 The planning process does not 

necessarily lead to facility construction or renovation. Planning grants could 

determine that construction is not the tribe’s best course of action. Moreover, even 

if the planning process results in a determination that facility construction or 

renovation most appropriately served the needs of the tribe, BJA cannot fund every 

construction project identified by a planning grant. OJP officials told us that in 

FY 2010 BJA broadened the scope of planning grants to allow tribes to do more 

than master planning, including pre-construction activities such as schematic 

designs and architectural drawings. 

Construction and renovation funds are awarded to: (1) renovate existing 

correctional facilities that are no longer considered safe or secure; (2) complete 

existing construction projects; or (3) construct new single jurisdiction tribal 

correctional facilities, regional detention centers, multipurpose justice centers, and 

community based correctional alternative facilities.8 These funds also cover other 

costs associated with construction or renovation of a facility, such as roads, sewer, 

water hook-ups, and land preparation. T&TA is offered to TJSIP grantees for facility 

renovation and construction. 

From FYs 2009 through 2014, BJA awarded $275,960,760 in funds to support 

the TJSIP. Table 1 shows the total funds awarded for FYs 2009 through 2014. 

7 In 2012, the strategic planning program was expanded to engage in comprehensive justice 

system wide strategic planning to improve tribal justice, community wellness, and safety, including 

activities outlined in the TLOA, such as strategic planning and the development of a Tribal Action Plan. 

BJA, the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), and the Office for 

Victims of Crime (OVC) committed resources to fund applications to support the Comprehensive Tribal 

Justice Systems Strategic Planning Program. In FY 2014, to allow for more resources to support 

renovation projects, BJA discontinued planning grants through TJSIP. Tribes are now encouraged to 

conduct a broader, more comprehensive assessment of their justice system needs with planning funds 

through the Comprehensive Tribal Justice Systems Strategic Planning Program. 

8 Beginning in FY 2014, BJA no longer provides funding for the construction of new tribal 

justice facilities because the current levels of funding available through the BIA to operate, staff and 

maintain tribal detention centers are not sufficient to meet the need for Indian country. BJA told us 

that unless there is a significant increase in funding levels to support the construction of new facilities 

as well as operations, BJA will not be awarding funds for the construction of new facilities. The 

following section discusses in more detail BIA’s role in operating completed facilities. 

3 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                            

Table 1 

TJSIP Funding Awarded for FYs 2009 through 2014
 

FISCAL YEAR PLANNING 

RENOVATION/ 

CONSTRUCTION T&TA TOTAL 

FY 2009 $1,605,855 $3,375,952 $1,769,188 $6,750,995 

2009 ARRAa -b 219,999,058 4,487,335 224,486,393 

FY 2010 2,355,396 6,446,306 838,221 9,639,923 

FY 2011 2,125,762 6,254,076 850,000 9,229,838 

FY 2012 -b 8,392,283 1,108,511 9,500,794 

FY 2013 1,055,945 7,930,038 900,000 9,885,983 

FY 2014 523,479 5,893,355 50,000 6,466,834 

Total Funding FYs 2009 through 2014 $275,960,760 

a This funding was awarded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act). 

b BJA did not award planning funds these years. 

Source: OJP 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) within the DOI, is responsible for 

overseeing and operating adult and juvenile facilities in Indian country. It manages 

or oversees detention facilities that are: (1) operated by BIA, (2) contracted with 

tribes under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 

(Pub. L. 93-638), (3) self-governance compacted between BIA and the tribes, or 

(4) operated by state and local entities under contract with BIA.9 A small number 

of Indian country jails are operated strictly by tribes without BIA fiscal support. In 

its 2014 budget justification, BIA stated that it oversaw 95 corrections programs 

providing support for 87 detention facilities in 58 tribal nations. These funds 

supported operation and maintenance costs such as utilities, staff, janitorial service, 

and refuse collection. Due to limited funding, BIA funds operations at varying 

levels, but generally does not fund any corrections program in full. According to 

OJP, tribes that can afford to supplement BIA funding generally are in a better 

position to fully operate and maintain their correctional facilities. 

9 Tribes and tribal organizations may enter into agreements with the federal government to 

manage DOI and/or Indian Health Services programs that impact their members, resources, and 

governments pursuant to agreements with the federal government, in accordance with the Indian 

Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (Pub. L. No. 93-638) and the 1994 

amendments to that law. These agreements are commonly referred to as either “638 contracts” or 

“self-governance compacts” and have very similar goals and objectives. 

4 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

                                                            

As shown in Figure 2, prior to funding TJSIP awards, each application 

submitted to BJA undergoes a review process to ensure the most qualified 

applicants are awarded grants.10 

Figure 2 

BJA TJSIP Award Process 

a Starting in FY 2013, BJA also provided the applications to the Indian Health Services (IHS) for 

review and input as it relates to community-based rehabilitation. 

Source: OJP 

First, BJA performs an internal review to determine if the applications meet 

the basic minimum requirements of the solicitation. Successful applications are 

then sent to independent peer reviewers for evaluation. BJA defines the criteria 

and the weighting of each criterion used to evaluate applications submitted under 

the TJSIP. For example, the criteria for the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act (Recovery Act) applications included evaluating the statement of the problem, 

the project design and implementation, the capabilities and competencies of the 

tribe, the project budget, and the impact or outcome of the project. Each criterion 

is assigned a weight (percentage) by BJA. A peer reviewer’s overall application 

score is on a scale of 0 (unacceptable) to 100 (excellent), and is the sum of each 

criterion’s weighted score. BJA also forwards successful applications to BIA for 

input regarding which tribes should receive awards, as tribes generally seek funding 

through BIA to support costs to maintain, staff, and operate the facilities. After 

applications have been peer reviewed and recommendations from BIA have been 

received, BJA program office management collaborates to recommend applications 

10 Beginning in FY 2010, all awards under TJSIP are made under the DOJ Coordinated Tribal 

Assistance Solicitation (CTAS). CTAS is designed to encourage tribes to assess their public safety 

resources needs in a comprehensive way, taking into account the state of the entire tribal justice 

system. Prior to the implementation of CTAS, each tribal-specific grant funding stream, including 

TJSIP funding, utilized a separate competitive solicitation and application approval process. Through 

CTAS, only one application is accepted from each federally recognized tribe to encourage 

comprehensive planning and assessment of needs. Each tribe can apply for funding under purpose 

areas where the funding addresses the needs of the tribe as outlined in its tribal and community 

profile. TJSIP is funded through CTAS Purpose Area 4, Corrections and Correctional Alternatives. 

5 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

 

                                                            

  

for funding.11 Funding recommendations, including the rationale for selection, are 

then sent to OJP’s Assistant Attorney General (AAG) for approval. While BJA 

recommends applications for funding, the ultimate funding decision is made by the 

AAG for OJP. After the AAG approves funding recommendations, awards are made. 

Once the awards are made, BJA utilizes T&TA providers to support the TJSIP 

grantees through the planning, renovation, or construction, of correctional facilities, 

multi-purpose justice centers, or correctional alternative facilities. Planning T&TA 

providers assist tribes through the planning process to determine correctional 

needs, while construction T&TA providers are essentially a construction 

management team for BJA to ensure grantees renovate or construct facilities cost 

effectively and according to schedule. Planning milestones for the grantee include: 

(1) appointing a project manager, (2) attending a DOJ training workshop, (3) hiring 

a consultant, (4) completing a community profile and case processing review, 

(5) identifying goals and objectives, (6) creating a preliminary budget, and 

(7) submitting a master plan to BJA. Construction or renovation milestones 

include: (1) site selection, (2) establishing a project budget, (3) appointing a 

project manager, (4) conducting a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

review, (5) submitting an Environmental Assessment to BJA, (6) selecting an 

architecture and engineering firm, (7) selecting a construction company, and 

(8) building construction.12 Not all milestones are applicable to each grantee; 

therefore, not all grantees are required to complete every milestone. 

The T&TA providers provide site assistance to grantees and subsequently 

submit site visit reports to BJA for every onsite visit conducted at a TJSIP grantee. 

Quarterly or semiannual reports are also submitted to BJA related to 

accomplishments for the period, including the number of training sessions 

conducted, the number of technical assistance events conducted, the status of 

renovation and construction projects, and any challenges grantees faced during the 

period. 

As of September 2014, according to BJA officials there were also three BJA 

program managers assigned to the administration of the TJSIP – one managed the 

competitive awarding process and two monitored grantees once awards were made. 

These BJA program managers and other OJP officials participated in biweekly 

meetings to discuss grantee status and concerns. BJA grant managers also 

reviewed semiannual progress reports submitted by grantees and conducted site 

11 As part of the funding recommendation process through CTAS, the DOJ grant-making 

components meet to discuss and agree on the recommended awards to each tribal applicant. 

12 NEPA requires the federal government to use all practicable means to create and maintain 

conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony. NEPA also requires federal 

agencies to incorporate environmental considerations in their planning and decision-making through a 

systematic interdisciplinary approach. Specifically, all federal agencies are to prepare detailed 

statements assessing the environmental impact of and alternatives to major federal actions that may 

significantly affect the environment. These statements are commonly referred to as Environmental 

Impact Statements and Environmental Assessments. 

6 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

 

 

visits and desk reviews, while the Office of the Chief Financial Officer conducted 

financial reviews. Other oversight activities performed by BJA included: 

	 Developing a monthly Status Tracking Chart for Recovery Act grantees to 

track each project’s major milestones through to completion, including the 

NEPA clearance, BIA design reviews, and the four main stages of 

construction. The Monthly Tracking Charts were provided to BJA and OJP 

leadership on a monthly basis. 

	 Using its Grant Assessment Tool to assess the potential risk of the 

Recovery Act grants, which included OJP’s Office of Audit, Assessment, 

and Management conducting quarterly risk indicator reviews on grantee 

metrics, such as reporting compliance and drawdown activity, to identify 

potential at-risk grantees in real time. These reports were used by the 

BJA to perform follow-up with grantees. 

	 Preparing Program Performance Reports (PPR) yearly based on the 

performance measurement data self-reported by TJSIP grantees. The 

intent of the PPR is to increase the transparency and accountability of the 

TJSIP program by highlighting grantee progress toward achieving 

strategic plans, renovation, or construction projects. 

	 Completing a GrantStat Report in June 2011 and again in April 2012 for 

the TJSIP, which discussed the grantees’ progress, program activities, and 

any assistance needed by the grantees. The end result was a 

spreadsheet ranking of Recovery Act TJSIP projects based on overall 

progress. 

	 Conducting quarterly conference calls with Recovery Act grantees, T&TA 

providers, and BIA to discuss grantees and any issues. 

	 Contacting TJSIP grantees via telephone or email and receiving reports 

from T&TA providers. 

	 Coordinating with BIA through email regarding design reviews and facility 

openings. 

OIG Audit Approach 

The objectives of our audit were to: (1) assess OJP’s management and 

oversight of the funding provided under the TJSIP, including the contracting 

activities of grantees; and (2) determine the extent of OJP’s cooperation and 

coordination with BIA to ensure efficient and effective correctional services in Indian 

country. 

To accomplish these objectives, we conducted interviews with officials at OJP, 

DOJ’s Office of Tribal Justice (OTJ), BIA, employees of TJSIP grantees, and the 

7 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

                                                            

T&TA contractor. We incorporated as necessary throughout this report the results 

from five OIG audit reports of individual TJSIP grantees previously issued by the 

OIG between December 2014 and November 2015.13 Each of the five audit reports 

described more granularly the issues we found in auditing the particular TJSIP 

grantees, while this report focuses on issues related to OJP’s management and 

oversight identified in part through these audits. We also incorporated as 

necessary throughout this report the results from 10 reviews by the OIG of 

planning grantees.14 For these reviews, we analyzed consultant expenditures to 

determine the total cost of each TJSIP grantees’ master plan. Finally, we conducted 

one review of the Nisqually Tribe to assess the results of the $10,720,232 

construction project. 

We also analyzed contract documentation related to OJP’s contract to provide 

T&TA services to TJSIP grantees. The scope of our audit generally covered 

FYs 2009 through 2014, although our focus was primarily on the grants awarded 

prior to FY 2014 since grants that were more recently awarded have had little 

progress. Appendix 1 contains a detailed description of our audit objectives, scope, 

and methodology. 

This report provides the results of our assessment of OJP’s coordination with 

BIA as well as our review of OJP’s oversight and management of the TJSIP grantees 

and our assessment of OJP’s implementation of the services provided to TJSIP 

grantees by OJP’s T&TA providers. 

13 The five TJSIP grant audits include: (1) U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector 

General, Audit of the Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Assistance Correctional Systems and 

Correctional Alternatives on Tribal Lands Program Grants Awarded to Pueblo of Laguna, Laguna, New 

Mexico, Audit Report Number GR-60-15-003 (December 2014); (2) U.S. Department of Justice Office 

of the Inspector General, Audit of the Office of Justice Programs Correctional Systems and Correctional 

Alternatives on Tribal Lands Program Grants Awarded to the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, 

Poplar, Montana, Audit Report GR-60-15-009 (May 2015); (3) U.S. Department of Justice Office of the 

Inspector General, 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 Report GR-60-15-015 (September 2015); (4) U.S. Department of Justice Office of 

the Inspector General, Audit of the Office of Justice Programs Grants Awarded to the National Indian 

Justice Center, Santa Rosa, California, Audit Report Number GR-90-15-006 (September 2015), 

(5) U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, Audit of the Office of Justice Programs 

Correctional Systems and Correctional Alternatives on Tribal Lands Program Grant Awarded to the 

Eight Northern Indian Pueblos Council, Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico, Audit Report GR-60-16-001 

(November 2015). 

14 Of the 11 planning grants, 1 award made to the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes 

(Fort Peck) had been reviewed by the OIG as part of the 5 grant audits referenced previously. 

Therefore, we reviewed a total of 10 new TJSIP grantees during this audit. 

8 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

                                                            

 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Coordination between OJP and BIA was not always effective, which 

resulted in three TJSIP-funded correctional facilities, built at a 

cumulative cost of $21,820,000, remaining non-operational or partially 

operational for over a decade after the initial awards were made and 

3 or more years after the TJSIP grants were fully expended. The 

coordination deficiencies also resulted in delays with the design and 

certificate of occupancy processes as well as issues with tribes 

obtaining sufficient operations and maintenance funding to fully 

operate the facilities upon construction completion. 

We also determined that there were inadequacies with OJP’s due 

diligence during the application process and oversight of the TJSIP 

grantees, which led to: (1) the construction of excessively large 

facilities that were not in line with the tribes’ documented needs; 

(2) unused planning products; (3) premature funding of construction 

before adequate planning was completed; and (4) ineffective use of 

TJSIP funds. The excessively large facilities had proportionately higher 

operating costs that in most cases greatly exceeded available funding 

from BIA, resulting in facilities that were not fully occupied, fully 

staffed, or fully operational when completed. The inadequacies with 

OJP oversight also resulted in poorly defined T&TA services; conflict of 

interest (COI) issues between one of the TJSIP-funded T&TA providers, 

Justice Solutions Group (JSG), and TJSIP grantees; and potential 

savings to the government of over $3 million related to comprehensive 

justice planning. OJP’s management of a contract with Alpha 

Corporation (Alpha Corp) was also inadequate to fully ensure 

compliance with contract terms and conditions. 

As a result of these issues, we identified $43,657,072 in total 

dollar-related findings specific to deficiencies with OJP’s oversight and 

management. This figure includes approximately $32 million that the 

Navajo Nation spent on excessively large detention facilities, which we 

separately questioned in a prior audit report and also attribute to OJP’s 

lack of oversight in this report, as well as nearly $12 million in new 

questioned costs.15 The new questioned costs include $10,720,232 

misused by the Nisqually Tribe on a correctional facility intended to 

generate profit with as little as 2 percent of the total inmate population 

15 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 Report GR 60 15-015 (September 2015). OJP disagrees with some of the conclusions 

from the OIG’s report, which questioned the excessively large facilities built by the Navajo Nation 

compared to the stated need. Consequently, two of the report’s recommendations concerning more 

than $32 million in questioned costs remain unresolved. 

9 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

subject to tribal jurisdiction; $842,879 related to COI issues; and 

$59,338 for contract non-compliance. 

OJP Coordination with BIA 

While OJP is responsible for awarding TJSIP grants to plan, construct, and 

renovate adult and juvenile facilities in Indian country, BIA is responsible for 

oversight and operations. As described below, instances of ineffective coordination 

between a component of DOJ and a component of the DOI has presented significant 

problems that have contributed to spending tens of millions of dollars on 

constructing tribal justice facilities that were excessive in size and in some cases, 

facilities that have never been opened or experienced lengthy delays before 

becoming operational. 

BIA requires tribes to submit designs for approval at certain phases of the 

architectural design process and also issues certificates of occupancy for new 

facilities whose operations will be funded by BIA. However, we found that 

coordination efforts between OJP and BIA lacked a formal protocol that could 

promote the timely progression of TJSIP-funded facility construction through BIA’s 

design review process and certificate of occupancy process. We identified three 

instances where TJSIP grants were used to build facilities with construction flaws 

that significantly delayed or prevented facilities from operating. 

Additionally, it is BIA that funds the operations of facilities based on BIA’s 

funding availability and BIA generally does not fund any program in full. An April 

1998 letter to DOJ from BIA indicated the DOI would submit budget requests to 

Congress for staffing and operations and maintenance for correctional facilities 

constructed with TJSIP funding. Ensuring that the necessary funding will be 

available to operate, staff, and maintain TJSIP-funded facilities when they are 

complete therefore requires coordination between OJP and BIA. Yet we found that 

there are no formal procedures or agreements between OJP and BIA to help ensure 

that this coordination occurs. 

Design Review Process 

For BIA-funded facilities, BIA requires tribes to submit architectural designs 

for review at 70 percent, 99 percent, and 100 percent completion. Based on 

guidance from BIA, tribes should not proceed to the next phase of design without 

BIA’s approval, as BIA provides comments related to code compliance that need to 

be incorporated in the next design submittal. However, when designs are 

submitted, BIA does not provide a timeframe for a response or acknowledgment of 

receipt, and there are no status updates until an approval is received. According to 

OJP, BJA tracked the status of these reviews through Status Tracking Charts and 

would contact the grantees or BIA to obtain information on the status of the 

architectural review process. 

10 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                            

  

BIA officials told us that when the Recovery Act funds were awarded, the 

number of designs submitted to BIA for review increased dramatically, and BIA did 

not have enough staff to handle the increased workload. This caused delays in 

returning designs to tribes. Indeed, we found that several of the TJSIP construction 

grants we reviewed during this audit suffered delays due to the lengthy BIA review 

process. For example, the project of the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes 

(Fort Peck) experienced BIA design review delays that required the tribe to request 

a project extension from OJP for the TJSIP grant.16 At the Pueblo of Laguna, two of 

the required BIA design reviews took over 10 months. Another tribe we 

interviewed stated it took 6 to 8 weeks for BIA to conduct design reviews. Based 

on our analysis performed at the tribes that we visited, we found that it can take 

anywhere from 2 to 10 months to receive BIA design approval. 

There is no formal procedure or agreement between OJP and BIA related to 

the coordination of activities for the design review that establishes: (1) the roles 

and responsibilities of OJP and BIA, (2) how communication between OJP and BIA 

will be conducted, (3) milestones to gauge when projects are not meeting targets, 

or (4) a process to ensure TJSIP grantees can involve OJP if reviews are delayed to 

expedite the process. Although OJP does not have authority over BIA and may not 

always be able to enforce agreement terms, establishing a formal procedure or 

agreement would enhance the coordination between OJP and BIA to promote a 

seamless design review process for TJSIP grantees. 

In contrast, one of the construction projects we reviewed during this audit 

that did not require BIA’s architectural design review, OJP’s grant to the Eight 

Northern Indian Pueblos Council totaling $5,636,317 to construct an alternative 

substance abuse treatment facility for juveniles, was completed within 7 months.17 

BIA was not involved with the project because the facility was not a correctional 

facility. Because designs were not required to be reviewed by BIA, the tribe was 

able to use a design build model, which allowed construction to begin once the 

architectural designs reached 50-percent completion. Although the project suffered 

delays at the beginning due to a scope and location change, construction started in 

April 2013 and the facility was completed in November 2013. 

16 U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, Audit of the Office of Justice 

Programs Correctional Systems and Correctional Alternatives on Tribal Lands Program Grants Awarded 

to the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, Poplar, Montana, Audit Report GR-60-15-009 (May 

2015), examined whether costs claimed under the grants were allowable, supported, and in 

accordance with applicable laws, regulations, guidelines, and terms and conditions of the grants. 

17 U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, Audit of the Office of Justice 

Programs Correctional Systems and Correctional Alternatives on Tribal Lands Program Grant Awarded 

to the Eight Northern Indian Pueblos Council, Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico, Audit 

Report GR-60-16-001 (November 2015), examined whether costs claimed under the grants were 

allowable, supported, and in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, guidelines, and terms and 

conditions of the grants. 

11 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy 

After construction completion, BIA generally provides the tribe with a 

temporary certificate of occupancy and final punch list of issues that need to be 

resolved before a final certificate of occupancy can be issued. Once all issues with 

the punch list are resolved, BIA issues a final certificate of occupancy. We 

identified delays in tribes receiving temporary and final certificates of occupancy 

from BIA. For example, Fort Peck reached substantial completion in January 2014, 

but did not receive a temporary certificate of occupancy until October 2014. It 

received a permanent certificate of occupancy in December 2014. According to Fort 

Peck officials, the delays were caused by BIA’s inaction to schedule a visit to resolve 

one outstanding issue related to the fire sprinkler system in the kitchen. One of the 

Navajo Nation’s projects also suffered delays in opening because BIA delayed 

scheduling a site visit to conduct its inspection. According to BIA officials, the size 

of the staff was not large enough to accommodate the increased workload as a 

result of the Recovery Act awards. 

There is no formal procedure or agreement between OJP and BIA related to 

the coordination of activities for the certificate of occupancy process that 

establishes: (1) the roles and responsibilities of OJP and BIA, (2) how 

communication between OJP and BIA will be conducted, (3) milestones to gauge 

when projects are not meeting targets, or (4) a process to ensure TJSIP grantees 

can involve OJP if inspections are delayed. Although OJP does not have authority 

over BIA and may not always be able to enforce agreement terms, establishing a 

formal procedure or agreement would enhance the coordination between OJP and 

BIA to promote a seamless certification of occupancy issuance process for TJSIP 

grantees. 

Operation and Maintenance of Completed Facilities 

According to the National Institute of Corrections, for every dollar that is 

spent building the detention structure, between $9 and $15 is required to operate 

it. Staffing accounts for 80 percent of the total operating costs, which also includes 

supplies and maintenance. BIA’s operational funding does not cover health care 

expenses, including treatment for substance abuse and mental health issues, or for 

treatment of sex offenders. Because staffing is dependent upon facility design, 

jurisdictions must identify staffing requirements during the planning stages rather 

than wait until the building is open. Tribes also need to balance their options for 

size and quality of new facilities with available funding. 

We found that for TJSIP-funded facilities, funding for staff operations is not 

secured from BIA until the facility is built. BJA requires a grantee to explain in the 

grant application process the tribe’s intention for operations and maintenance 

funding. Additionally, during the TJSIP awarding process, BJA provides a list of 

TJSIP applicants to BIA to obtain recommendations from BIA on prioritizing funding 

requests based on BIA’s ability to financially support projects and a tribe’s need. 

12 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

                                                            

 

However, due to BIA’s appropriation process, BIA cannot guarantee funding will be 

available at the end of the construction process, which often takes 2 or more years. 

We identified facilities funded by OJP through the TJSIP that were excessive 

in capacity, which subsequently led to operations and staffing shortages due to a 

lack of BIA funding that ultimately prevented facilities from becoming fully 

operational. We previously conducted an audit of four awards, totaling 

approximately $70 million, made to the Navajo Division of Public Safety (NDPS) 

that were used to, among other things, construct two correctional facilities. These 

two correctional facilities were built with capacities that were at least 250-percent 

larger than the need stated in the March 2007 master plan, which was used as the 

basis for developing the Navajo Nation’s grant applications. According to OJP, as of 

September 2016, one of the two facilities remained unopened due to construction 

issues, while the other facility had only 2 of 11 pods (each pod contains 12 beds) in 

one wing being utilized as well as the temporary holding cells due to a lack of 

operational funding from BIA.18 

A BIA official told us that BIA met with the NDPS on multiple occasions to 

discuss the large size of both facilities and explained BIA would not be able to fund 

the staffing required to fully operate the two facilities.19 The excessive size of each 

facility creates increased costs for operations and maintenance staff, both of which 

are significantly funded by BIA. Due to BIA’s funding constraints, BIA told us it 

generally can only provide 40 percent of requested funding for tribal corrections 

officers. As a result, there is an increased risk that these two facilities will not be 

able to become fully operational anytime in the near future, if ever, due to a lack of 

funding. If tribes cannot realistically be expected to use the full capacity of the 

constructed facilities within a reasonable time frame, or cannot staff the buildings, 

then the TJSIP funds were not efficiently utilized and could have potentially been 

used more efficiently to fund other TJSIP projects. 

In this audit we reviewed $10,720,232 awarded to the Nisqually Tribe in 

Olympia, Washington on September 21, 2009 under the TJSIP, to build a 

correctional facility with a 108-bed special needs housing unit, two 96-bed 

dorm-style housing units, and a support services building.20 The Nisqually Tribe 

stated in its application materials that it would fund the facility without BIA support 

by entering into fee-for-service agreements with other local and tribal jurisdictions 

to house inmates, which the Nisqually Tribe noted would be more than sufficient to 

sustain program operations. Yet after construction of the 288-bed non-tribal 

18 U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, 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 Report GR-60-15-015 

(September 2015). 

19 Subsequent to the awarding of TJSIP funds to the Navajo Nation, the Navajo Nation 

increased the sizes of both facilities by at least 250 percent. 

20 See OJP’s Due Diligence During Award Process section of this report for additional analysis 

of the award made to the Nisqually Tribe. 

13 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

 

                                                            

 

facility, the Nisqually Tribe requested $7 to $9 million in funding from BIA to 

support operations, which BIA denied. With the average inmate population subject 

to tribal jurisdiction at as little as 2 percent of capacity, the Nisqually Tribe built a 

facility that far exceeded its need, which BIA would not support. Greater 

coordination between OJP and BIA could have helped ensure that a reasonably 

sized facility was built to meet the needs of the tribe, and that adequate operations 

and maintenance funding would be available once construction was complete. 

According to BJA, while $225 million in Recovery Act funds were provided to 

OJP to distribute under the TJSIP to support construction projects, no additional 

funding was provided to BIA to operate the facilities constructed with Recovery Act 

funds. As a result, the operating cost of these facilities is a significant issue. We 

believe greater coordination between OJP and BIA in the planning process would 

have helped to ensure tribes constructed appropriately-sized facilities that would 

have allowed the facilities to be fully operational after construction given the 

limitations on BIA’s funding capabilities. 

Unopened Facilities 

During our review, we identified three TJSIP-funded facilities that remained 

non-operational or only partially operational for 3 or more years after the TJSIP 

grant funds were fully expended as a result of construction issues. If the grants are 

closed before the buildings are completed, free from construction flaws, and 

operational, the end goal of incarcerating and providing rehabilitation services to 

juvenile and adult offenders cannot be achieved and there is an increased risk that 

facilities will remain unopened for many years. 

Tribe Number 121 

Tribe Number 1, located in North Dakota, received $4,195,000 through the 

TJSIP from FYs 2004 through 2009 to construct a 16-bed secure juvenile 

correctional facility.22 In October 2011, Tribe Number 1 received its permanent 

certificate of occupancy from BIA and the final TJSIP grant ended in November 

2011 and was closed shortly thereafter in June 2012 when all grant funds were 

expended. However, the facility was never opened or became operational. 

According to BJA officials, BJA had, on multiple occasions, expressed its concerns to 

BIA about the non-operational status of the facility, which initially was due to an 

issue of inadequate funding between BIA and Tribe Number 1 to provide staff. In 

2013, when OJP conducted a site visit to Tribe Number 1 to tour the facility and 

monitor other grants, OJP officials learned that after the permanent certificate of 

21 Throughout this report we discuss details related to recipients, including tribes, consultants, 

and an individual who received TJSIP funding. We named those recipients who individually had a 

significant effect on our audit approach, recommendations, and conclusions. We determined that 

certain recipients did not have such an effect individually, and those recipients therefore are not 

named. Instead, those tribes, consultants, and individual are numbered sequentially in order of 

appearance in this report. 

22 The original $3,000,000 award to Tribe Number 1 in 2004 was a congressional mandate. 

14 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

                                                            

occupancy was issued by BIA in October 2011, BIA generated a repair list of items 

that needed to be fixed before the facility could open. According to OJP, it has 

continued to work with the tribe and BIA to facilitate the opening of the facility. 

According to BIA, Tribe Number 1 passed a resolution after the certificate of 

occupancy was issued requesting support from BIA. When BIA inspected the 

facility there were several operational issues that were linked to the construction 

and installation of items in the facility. The facility did not meet several Americans 

with Disabilities Act requirements, required life safety mandated repairs to meet 

codes, and had electrical and mechanical problems that prohibited BIA from 

operating it. The tribe itself needed to make repairs as these were construction and 

installation issues. BIA and Tribe Number 1 entered into an agreement outlining 

the repairs that were needed prior to the facility becoming operational. BIA 

upgraded operational systems, added utilities, paid for the operations and 

maintenance, and occupied the building administratively. An inspection of the 

facility was scheduled for December 9, 2014. However, as of September 2015, 

4 years after the certificate of occupancy was issued, the facility remained 

unopened because the repairs were not completed. As a result, BIA transports 

youths to nearby contract facilities. According to OJP, Tribe Number 1 secured the 

funds necessary to make the repairs and expected to open the facility in the 

summer of 2016. 

Tribe Number 2 

Tribe Number 2, located in South Dakota, received $9,395,000 through the 

TJSIP from FYs 2004 through 2009 to renovate a former boot and moccasin factory 

and turn it into a 21-bed adult and 10-bed juvenile detention center.23 As of 

September 30, 2011, all grant funds had been expended. The final TJSIP grant was 

administratively closed in March 2015 after resolving an issue with the match 

requirement. 

According to BIA, the 21,920 square foot (SF) facility received a temporary 

certificate of occupancy from BIA’s Office of Facilities Management around June 

2012, which permitted the tribe to occupy the facility. Tribe Number 2 passed a 

resolution requesting support from BIA. However, there were several operational 

issues that were linked to the construction and installation of items in the facility. 

The facility did not meet several Americans with Disabilities Act requirements, 

23 The total funding received by Tribe Number 2 includes 3 separate awards: (1) $2,900,000 

awarded in 2004 as a congressional mandate, (2) $695,000 awarded in 2006 through BJA’s 

competitive award process, and (3) $5,800,000 awarded in 2009 as part of the Recovery Act. Tribe 

Number 2 was originally awarded $1,338,750 in 1997 by the Corrections Program Office under the 

Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive Formula Grant Program. The project 

stalled when all construction bids came in much higher than anticipated. Tribe Number 2 was not 

interested in scaling back the size of the facility, and so, in June 1999, after $151,093 was used for 

demolition and planning, the remaining $1,187,657 in funds were deobligated, and the award was 

closed. 

15 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

required life safety-mandated repairs to meet codes, and had electrical and 

mechanical problems that prohibited BIA from operating it. 

According to BIA, if the construction contractor had built according to the 

approved plans from BIA’s Office of Facilities Management, there would have been 

fewer repairs and installation issues. However, according to BJA, BIA officials did 

not have or could not locate copies of the approved plan during a quarterly 

conference call. Nevertheless, Tribe Number 2 has had several contractors working 

on the facility over the past 11 years. According to BIA, the tribe terminated a 

recent contractor and hired a new one to make repairs. As of April 2015, the tribe 

had received its third temporary certificate of occupancy. On June 22, 2015, the 

tribe received the permanent certificate of occupancy and the facility became 

operational. We determined OJP closed the grant prior to the resolution of issues 

related to construction and opening the facility. For 3 years after the first 

temporary certificate of occupancy was issued in June 2012, the facility remained 

unused and BIA transported adults and youths to nearby contract facilities. 

Tribe Number 3 

Tribe Number 3, located in South Dakota, received $8,230,000 through the 

TJSIP from FYs 2002 through 2006 to plan, design, and construct a 36-bed adult 

and 22-bed juvenile correctional facility to be located on Tribe Number 3’s 

reservation. OJP administratively closed the grant in April 2009 because of the 

tribe’s non-compliance with close-out requirements. Specifically, after multiple 

attempts, the tribe failed to submit a final progress report and was not in 

compliance with grant special conditions. 

According to BIA, the tribe passed a resolution requesting support from BIA 

once the facility was built. When BIA inspected the facility, it found several issues 

related to the construction and installation of items in the facility. The roof was not 

properly installed and had caved in on the juvenile section, and the facility was not 

wired to properly connect security and automation systems, causing the doors and 

security systems to malfunction. However, because the tribe administered the 

maintenance portion of the facility, BIA could not open the facility until the tribe 

completed the necessary repairs. As of September 2015, facility repairs were made 

and it is operational. We determined OJP closed the grant prior to the resolution of 

issues related to construction and opening the facility. For 6 years after the grant 

was closed by OJP in April 2009, the facility was only used as a temporary holding 

facility until inmates could be transported to other locations. BIA was transporting 

both adult and juvenile inmates to nearby contract facilities. 

DOJ has invested millions of dollars to fund the construction of correctional 

facilities to address the significant public safety issues in Indian country. However, 

OJP closed TJSIP grants prior to ensuring that all construction flaws were resolved, 

and that the facilities were open and fully operational. If facility construction is 

inadequate and facilities cannot be operational, the funds used to build each facility 

are futile while also impeding the tribe’s ability to address the significant public 

16 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

                                                            

 

safety issues in Indian country. We found that despite coordination efforts 

including email correspondence with BIA and quarterly conference calls, the 

coordination between OJP and BIA was not always effective to ensure appropriately 

sized facilities that met all construction requirements were opened and fully 

operational. The coordination efforts between OJP and BIA also lacked the 

protocols that could promote the more timely progression of TJSIP-funded facilities 

through BIA’s design review process and certificate of occupancy process. 

We recommend that OJP coordinate with BIA to improve the design and 

certificate of occupancy processes as well as ensure appropriately sized facilities 

can be funded, completed, opened, and fully operational. This includes developing 

a formal agreement between OJP and BIA to document the roles and 

responsibilities of each agency, expectations of each agency, and areas of 

coordination. Additionally, we recommend that OJP review the circumstances of the 

facilities that remained unopened or non-operational after the TJSIP grants were 

closed, determine if any grant funds should be repaid by the grantees due to the 

ineffective or inappropriate use of funds, and develop a corrective action plan to 

ensure that all unopened facilities or less than fully operational facilities become 

fully operational within a reasonable timeframe.24 

OJP’s Due Diligence During Award Process 

We found that BJA does not require grantees to include plans in their grant 

applications, such as a master plan identifying the number of beds proposed for 

construction. BJA only requests that applicants demonstrate some type of planning 

has occurred. Our audit further found that TJSIP construction grants were awarded 

before complete plans were submitted to BJA, particularly where facility needs and 

funding from BIA for operating costs had not been determined. As a result, 

significant inefficiencies resulted, including facilities that had substantial excess 

space and grant funds that went unused for long periods of time. We believe, 

based on the following information that we identified concerning grants awarded to 

particular tribes, that BJA did not adequately assess requests for substantial 

funding amounts due to insufficient knowledge of tribes’ needs, which could have 

been supported with documented planning results and coordination with BIA. 

The Navajo Nation 

As mentioned previously, in a prior grant audit, we reviewed four TJSIP 

awards, totaling approximately $70 million, made to NDPS in which we identified 

over $35 million in questionable uses of grant funding mostly related to the 

construction of two correctional facilities. These two correctional facilities were built 

24 Since May 2015, representatives from BJA, OJP’s Office of the Assistant Attorney General, 

and DOJ OTJ have held biweekly meetings to address issues for facilities that are not yet open. 

Additionally, in May 2016, OJP developed a new policy to address the need to define, monitor, and 

track real property in which the government holds a continuing interest, which includes construction 

and renovation projects funded through the TJSIP. The policy requires entities to submit annual 

reports on the status of real property. 

17 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

                                                            

 

 

 

 

with capacities that were at least 250-percent larger than the need stated in the 

March 2007 master plan, which was used as the basis for developing the Navajo 

Nation’s grant applications. 

In this report we analyzed OJP’s oversight of these grants. We found that, 

during the application process for 2009 Recovery Act funds, BJA encouraged 

applicants to provide information such as: (1) an assessment of bed space needs; 

(2) violent crime statistics; (3) BIA assessment of need and support; (4) a 

complete construction or renovation plan; and (5) demonstration that the tribe or 

BIA had the capacity to operate and sustain facility operations once construction or 

renovation was complete.25 

Despite these suggestions, we found that BJA awarded funds to NDPS even 

though NPDS’ application did not include specific information related to bed space 

needs. Instead, the NDPS application referenced a master plan from March 2007 

and stated that the NDPS was applying for funds based on this master plan, which 

included specific square footages and budgets for each location that matched 

exactly the total amounts listed in the application materials. Although we believe 

these representations made the master plan an inseparable part of the NDPS 

application, we found that the master plan was not included in the application 

package in OJP’s Grant Management System (GMS). BJA officials told us that they 

received the March 2007 master plan separately from the application package in 

late 2011, nearly 2 years after the two construction grants were awarded in 

September 2009. Additionally, once the March 2007 master plan was provided, BJA 

officials only gave it a brief review. 

We reviewed the master plan and determined that it provided comprehensive 

plans to build justice complexes at 13 locations across the Navajo Nation, which 

included corrections, courts, law enforcement, and peacemaking spaces that 

incorporate lighting, shapes, and forms typical of the Navajo traditions. The March 

2007 master plan also included detailed information for each site, including 

construction budgets; facility purposes, such as detention, courts, and police; 

facility needs, including inmate beds and square footage of specific rooms; and 

requirements as specific as beverage station and refrigerator sizes. However, as 

we described in our prior audit report, NDPS applied for and was awarded these 

TJSIP grants at a time when TJSIP funds could only be used for detention facility 

construction. Despite this limitation, NDPS sought TJSIP funding based on the total 

25 According to OJP, starting in 2012, BJA started requesting more specific inmate and facility 

statistics as part of the application. We found that BJA requested information related to what 

additional resources the tribe “may” leverage to complete the project. It did not require the tribe to 

clearly describe the other funding sources that had been secured in order to complete the project. 

BJA also requested information related to the tribe’s request to BIA for staffing, operations, and 

maintenance of the proposed facility. Since 2013, BJA stated in the solicitation that if a tribe provides 

a needs assessment or master plan, which would allow BJA to see details of the facility plan such as 

bed space, it will receive priority consideration. However, BJA does not require that these documents 

be submitted. Beginning in 2014, BJA required grantees to submit the average daily population in the 

current correctional facility for the last 6 months; however, BJA does not require information sufficient 

to show longer-term facility trends. 

18 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

square footage and cost to build the entire criminal justice complex at Tuba City 

and Kayenta, including court facilities, law enforcement buildings, and correctional 

facilities. Because BJA did not review the March 2007 master plan at the time of 

the award, it was unaware of the Navajo Nation’s original project plan. BJA 

therefore failed to identify that the request by NDPS for approximately $70 million 

in grant funds was $32,034,623 in excess of the stated need based on the master 

plan referenced specifically in the application materials. 

We asked BJA officials if they were aware that the master plan called for less 

bed space at the two correctional facilities, and of the subsequent increase in 

correctional facility sizes beyond the specifications of the master plan. They told us 

they were not certain why the bed space increased from the March 2007 master 

plan as the information related to bed space was not included in the application. 

OJP relies on grantees to apply for grant funds based on need. However, because 

the March 2007 master plan was specifically identified in the applications and the 

funding request was based on the master plan, we believe these representations 

made the master plan an inseparable part of the Navajo Nation’s application, which 

OJP failed to review until late 2011. 

OJP officials further stated that OJP determined the data from the March 

2007 master plan was outdated, and that the Navajo Nation therefore needed to 

revisit plans for the Recovery Act projects prior to actual construction to ensure the 

facilities were being built to meet current and future needs. However, as Recovery 

Act awards, these projects were required to be “shovel ready” and prepared to 

begin construction within 180 days of the award. If the data were in fact outdated 

and in need of reassessment, it is unlikely the projects would have met this 

requirement. Additionally, OJP’s determination was inconsistent with the Navajo 

Nation’s applications for the construction awards at Tuba City and Kayenta, in which 

the Navajo Nation indicated that planning had been completed and each project 

was ready to proceed to construction by February 2010. For the Kayenta facility, 

the March 2007 master plan specifically stated that design and construction of a 

new correctional facility had already been initiated. 

According to the Director of the Department of Corrections for the Navajo 

Nation, once the construction grant funds were awarded, the Navajo Nation learned 

it could not build the court or law enforcement facilities with grant funds. As a 

result, these officials told us, the sizes of the correctional facilities at Tuba City and 

Kayenta were expanded. The facilities therefore appear to have been expanded 

due to availability of funds, not because of updated analysis related to need. This 

was also confirmed through our review of construction contract documentation. 

In our judgment, given the availability to BJA of critical information that was 

referenced in the grant applications, we believe BJA had or should have had 

sufficient knowledge to prevent the awarding of $32,034,623 in excess funds 

without first conducting additional, necessary due diligence. Furthermore, because 

BJA awarded funds to NDPS in excess of demonstrated need by $32,034,623, there 

is a strong potential that other tribes who applied for Recovery Act TJSIP funding 

19 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

did not receive needed funds. For example, based on our review of Recovery Act 

TJSIP applications to BJA, one tribal application for $26,792,857, one tribal 

application for $4,913,840, and one tribal application for $2,665,354 could have 

been funded to address justice system needs at these tribes with the excess funds 

received by NDPS. 

Nisqually Tribe 

As previously mentioned, under the Recovery Act TJSIP, the Nisqually Tribe 

in Olympia, Washington, was awarded $10,720,232 on September 21, 2009, to 

build a correctional facility with a 108-bed special needs housing unit, two 96-bed 

dorm-style housing units, and a support services building. According to the project 

narrative, the Nisqually Tribe was requesting funding only for the portion of the 

facility that would be used to house the tribal population, which was 60 percent of 

the total $17,867,054 correctional facility construction costs. In the narrative, the 

tribe explained that to sustain program operations at the new facility it would 

generate revenue through contracts with other jurisdictions in the Nisqually service 

area to house prisoners who had been arrested for or convicted of crimes in those 

jurisdictions, which could include non-tribal offenders. 

According to BJA, the Nisqually service area includes the Nisqually 

reservation as well as multiple counties near the reservation. At the time of the 

grant application, the tribe had signed contracts with four neighboring tribes and 

five neighboring cities to house inmates for them. The tribe also had a contract 

with the Washington State Department of Corrections to house Department of 

Corrections overflow at the Nisqually facility, and the tribe advised BJA that the 

Department of Corrections could immediately make use of another 100 beds at the 

Nisqually facility due to the severe nature of its overcrowding. According to the 

Nisqually Tribe, based on the level of interest expressed by local tribes, and 

consultations with other off-reservation jurisdictions, a target inmate population of 

60-percent native and 40-percent non-native was initially identified for a facility of 

this size. 

According to the Recovery Act solicitation, grant recipients were not to profit 

from housing members of other tribes or non-tribal individuals for the portion of the 

facility funded by the BJA. In September 2011, 2 years after the award, BJA 

reiterated this solicitation requirement to the Nisqually Tribe. BJA told us that its 

understanding, through discussions with the tribe and OJP’s Office of General 

Counsel (OGC), was that the Recovery Act funding would be used only for the 

portion of the facility that would house the tribal population and would not generate 

a profit. The remaining 40 percent of the building would be funded with other 

sources to house inmates from other entities within the tribal service area. The 

TJSIP program statute stipulated that funding must be used to incarcerate and 

rehabilitate offenders under tribal jurisdiction. OJP officials told us that based on 

the tribe’s representations that it would only use program funding for the portion of 

the facility used for tribal offenders, OJP concluded that Nisqually's strategy was 

consistent with that statutory provision. 

20 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

                                                            

 

We asked BJA officials if they requested or reviewed inmate statistics at the 

time of the award to verify that 60 percent of the population of the previous jail 

facility comprised tribal members. BJA officials explained that it only reviewed 

application information contained in GMS, which did not include inmate statistics. 

According to BIA, the capacity of the Nisqually Tribe’s original facility was 70 beds 

and was always full with tribal and non-tribal inmates as the tribe had contracts to 

house inmates with other tribes, counties, and Washington state. As shown in 

Table 2, the average yearly inmate population prior to facility completion, including 

non-tribal inmates, ranged from 58 inmates in 2008 to 87 inmates in 2013.26 

Table 2 

Average Yearly Inmate Population for the
 

Nisqually Tribe’s Original Detention Facility 

YEAR 

AVERAGE 

INMATE 

POPULATION 

MAXIMUM 

INMATE 

POPULATION 

MINIMUM 

INMATE 

POPULATION 

2008 58 82 25 

2009 67 76 53 

2010 67 81 57 

2011 72 83 56 

2012 64 77 50 

2013 87 95 69 

Source: BIA 

The Nisqually Tribe provided average daily population information as well, 

including a breakdown of tribal inmates as shown in Table 3.27 

26 Inmate population data reported to BIA did not break down the population between tribal 

inmates and non-tribal inmates. 

27 The Nisqually Tribe provided average daily population information that was not consistent 

with BIA statistics. We did not analyze the statistics to determine the cause of the difference. 

21 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

 

                                                            

Table 3 

Average Yearly Inmate Population 

Reported by the Nisqually Tribe for 

the Original Detention Facility 

YEAR 

AVERAGE 

INMATE 

POPULATION TRIBAL 

PERCENT 

TRIBAL 

2008 35 11 31 

2009 35 11 31 

2010 35 11 31 

2011 50 18 36 

2012 68 20 29 

2013 90 40 44 

Source: The Nisqually Tribe 

As shown, at the time the Nisqually Tribe applied for Recovery Act TJSIP 

funds, only 31 percent of the inmate population was tribal in 2008 and 2009, far 

less than the representation in the Nisqually Tribe’s statements in its application 

narrative that 60 percent of the new facility would house tribal inmates. Moreover, 

the statistics failed to show whether the tribal inmates at the facility were subject to 

tribal jurisdiction, as required by the statutory authority of the TJSIP, or instead 

were being housed pursuant to service contracts the Nisqually Tribe had with other 

neighboring cities and the Washington Department of Corrections who were not 

subject to tribal jurisdiction.28 According to the Nisqually Tribe, the 60-percent 

tribal population figure was only a target, and the tribe continues to work to meet 

this target through outreach with other tribes in the service area who are in need of 

corrections services. The tribe’s goal is to use the new facility as a regional facility 

for Washington tribes on the west side of the mountains. The Nisqually Tribe told 

us it is confident it will reach the 60-percent target eventually. In our judgment, 

BJA failed during its due diligence process to undertake the type of review that it 

should have to ensure the claims being made by the tribe were supported by the 

data. 

28 The service contracts the Nisqually Tribe has with neighboring cities and the Washington 

Department of Corrections state that the Nisqually Tribe has contractual custody of the inmates and is 

responsible for their care. Care is defined as room and board. Each city and the Washington 

Department of Corrections maintain jurisdiction over the inmates. Therefore, these prisoners are not 

being held for violations of tribal civil and criminal laws. 

22 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
                                                            

Figure 3 

Nisqually Public Safety Complex
 

Source: BJA 

Construction for the new 288-bed facility was completed in December 2013 

and it became occupied in March 2014. According to the Nisqually Tribe, since 

opening, facility operations have ramped up on a gradual basis over the last 

2 years, with a focus on staff recruitment and training. The Nisqually Tribe 

provided detailed inmate data for 2014 and 2015, which showed the breakdown 

between tribal inmates and non-tribal inmates being held in the new facility. 

According to these statistics, the tribal population at the facility ranged from 

18 percent to 43 percent, well below the 60 percent tribal population figure the 

tribe included in its application. Moreover, the tribal population data again failed to 

distinguish between those tribal inmates who were subject to tribal jurisdiction and 

those tribal inmates who were being held through service contracts and therefore 

were not subject to tribal jurisdiction, regardless of ethnicity. According to the 

Nisqually Tribe’s inmate roster on September 1, 2015, which listed a total of 

315 inmates, we found that 7, or 2 percent of the total prison population, were 

inmates who we could explicitly determine were subject to tribal jurisdiction. 

Therefore, at full capacity, up to 98 percent of the inmates housed at the Nisqually 

correctional facility were not subject to tribal jurisdiction, including the inmates 

housed through the service contracts with neighboring cities and the Washington 

Department of Corrections.29 

According to the AAG’s funding memo for the 2009 Recovery Act TJSIP 

awards, the Nisqually Tribe application was not endorsed by BIA because the tribe 

proposed to build beyond current capacity. However, BJA noted in the AAG funding 

memo that the tribe indicated it would assume responsibility for operational and 

29 As of June 7, 2016, inmate population statistics were similar to September 2015. Of the 

total of 284 inmates, we found that 14, or 5 percent of the total prison population, were inmates who 

we could explicitly determine were subject to tribal jurisdiction. 

23 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

 

 

                                                            

staffing costs associated with the facility. According to BIA, it did not endorse the 

facility due to the excessive size, and also because the tribe had advised BIA that 

the new facility was intended as a profit-generating operation. The Nisqually Tribe 

explained that the tribe was unaware that BIA did not support the facility when the 

Nisqually Tribe applied for funding. Further, Nisqually Tribe officials explained that 

during the design phase, the tribe submitted architectural drawings at 60 percent, 

90 percent, and 100 percent completion to BIA for review and approval. However, 

while the design review process ensures compliance with all applicable building 

codes, assessments of whether the building meets or exceeds a tribe’s need are not 

included. 

According to the master plan completed by the Nisqually Tribe in July 2010, 

the estimated “bottom line” profit would be around $1.5 million per year. The 

master plan further stated that with the expanded facility there would be greater 

potential for fee-for-service contracts. In its application, the Nisqually Tribe stated 

it would provide the master plan via FedEx to OJP for inclusion in the grant 

proposal, as the file was too large to upload to OJP’s GMS. BJA officials did not 

recall receiving the master plan nor was it part of the competitive application 

review. BIA officials further explained that in 2013, the Nisqually Police Chief 

requested $7 to $9 million in BIA funding for operating costs despite assertions in 

the application materials that the tribe would assume responsibility of operational 

and staffing costs. BIA’s Office of Justice Services Director declined the request 

due to the Nisqually Tribe’s low inmate population and the facility’s excessive size 

as compared to the actual need of the tribe. Despite these concerns and the stated 

commercial intentions of the facility use, OJP funded the construction of this facility. 

Most of the inmates in the new facility come from service contracts with 

neighboring cities and the Washington Department of Corrections with which each 

city or the Washington Department of Corrections maintains jurisdiction over the 

inmates. As such, for future contracts, the Nisqually Tribe could seek to increase 

the contract costs to allow the facility to generate profits. Overall, we believe the 

Nisqually Tribe constructed a facility that did not conform to the statutory 

requirement of the TJSIP, which requires that funds be used to incarcerate and 

rehabilitate offenders subject to tribal jurisdiction. Based on information in the July 

2010 master plan along with the number of service agreements with non-tribal 

jurisdictions, we concluded that the facility was primarily intended to be a profitgenerating facility, which is not permissible under the solicitation.30 We believe BJA 

should have more carefully considered and taken into account BIA’s concerns when 

deciding whether to fund the construction that the tribe had proposed, and that its 

failure to do so resulted in an excessively large facility being built that was 

inconsistent with the requirements in the Recovery Act solicitation and statutory 

requirement of the TJSIP. As a result, we question the $10,720,232 awarded and 

expended by the Nisqually Tribe as misused funds. Further, BJA’s decision to fund 

the Nisqually Tribe’s correctional facility may have impacted the decision to deny 

30 Nisqually Tribe officials stated that the facility has been running at a deficit and if a profit 

were generated it would be invested back into the program. 

24 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                            

funding to other tribes with expressed needs for justice facilities and who applied 

for Recovery Act TJSIP. 

Tribe Number 4 

Tribe Number 4 received a grant for $120,000 in 2009 to conduct planning 

for a regional adult and juvenile detention facility to be located on Tribe Number 4's 

land to serve the tribes located in western Nevada. Tribe Number 4 coordinated 

with Tribe Number 5, who also received $150,000 to plan an adult and juvenile 

regional correctional facility in northwestern Nevada. According to the progress 

reports submitted to BJA, Tribe Number 5 would complete the master plan while 

Tribe Number 4 would complete an environmental assessment. 

On September 27, 2012, before the master plan was complete or clearly 

defined facility needs were determined, Tribe Number 4 was awarded $3,982,729 

under the TJSIP to construct a 122-bed adult and juvenile regional detention 

facility. According to OJP, BJA awarded these funds to Tribe Number 4 because it 

met a great need in an undeserved area, had regional support, and had support 

from BIA. In the program narrative, Tribe Number 4 noted that the community 

collaboration for this project had already been completed in the original planning 

process completed by Tribe Number 4 and planning by Tribe Number 5 was 

ongoing. However, according to Tribe Number 5, the selection of a facility concept 

by Tribe Number 4 preceded Tribe Number 5’s implementation of its goals, 

including space requirements, program development, a facility operation program, 

and facility design concept. Tribe Number 5 also noted that there were continued 

challenges confirming BIA's commitment to funding the operation of a new facility 

and the transportation of incarcerated individuals. As of June 30, 2015, nearly 

3 years after Tribe Number 4 was awarded the construction grant, Tribe Number 5’s 

master plan was still not complete.31 

Tribe Number 4’s original construction proposal for the 2012 TJSIP grant of a 

122-bed facility was deemed not feasible by OJP and, according to OJP, the award 

funds were placed on hold until the tribe could provide documentation to ensure 

sufficient funds were available to cover construction costs or plans were modified to 

ensure no cost overruns. 

BJA’s T&TA provider, the National Indian Justice Center (NIJC) assisted the 

tribe with identifying options that were feasible given the tribe’s budget constraints. 

Specifically, NIJC’s consultant found that the 122-bed facility could not be built with 

the available funding and provided the tribe with three options to proceed, but 

noted that all three options needed to be viewed as the first phase of a larger 

project. Tribe Number 4 elected the option to build a sentenced facility, which was 

for the development of a secure, long-term detention facility for residents all of one 

31 On August 28, 2015, a GAN was approved by OJP for Tribe Number 5 to shift the planning 

grant from a regional to a local analysis of Tribe Number 5 demands for incarceration and 

rehabilitation. 

25 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

gender. While this option complied with BIA detention standards, BIA had never 

operated a facility of this type before. The NIJC consultant’s analysis of Tribe 

Number 4’s proposal raised concerns about the sentenced facility option, including 

likely budget overruns and expensive operation costs. Despite the NIJC 

consultant’s concerns, OJP approved a Grant Adjustment Notice (GAN) on April 30, 

2014 submitted by Tribe Number 4 with the revised project narrative, to adjust the 

scope of its original project from a 122-bed adult and juvenile regional facility to a 

24-bed regional sentenced facility solely for adult males. 

As of June 30, 2015, more than 2 years after OJP awarded the nearly 

$4 million construction grant, Tribe Number 4 had completed the building design, 

but had not completed the BIA design review process and had not begun 

construction on the correctional facility. Additionally, through the June 2015 

progress report, Tribe Number 4 informed BJA that BIA would not fund operations 

and maintenance or provide staffing for the facility. According to OJP, as of May 

2016, OJP could not come to a viable arrangement with Tribe Number 4 and 

intended to deobligate the funds. As we identified, the TJSIP grant funds were 

awarded without an adequate plan in place and, as a result remained idle while 

other applicants, such as the Nebraska tribes described in the following section, did 

not receive funding for other tribal justice projects. We believe BJA could be more 

diligent when awarding TJSIP funds to ensure projects fully prepared for 

construction are funded. 

Nebraska Tribes 

In 2008, in response to numerous juvenile and adult offender issues facing 

their tribal populations, four tribes in Nebraska (Nebraska tribes) created a 

partnership to apply for TJSIP funding to plan and construct a regional juvenile 

detention center and an adult jail in northeastern Nebraska. Each tribe realized 

that as an individual entity, it would be unable to take on the high costs of 

construction and operations for a regional facility. As shown in Table 4, OJP 

awarded $1,740,666 to the Nebraska tribes under the TJSIP. 

26 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

 

 

Table 4 

TJSIP Funding Provided to the Nebraska Tribes
 

AWARDING 

INFORMATION 

AWARD 

AMOUNT 

START 

DATE END DATE GOAL 

Tribe #6 

2009 Planning Award $ 140,926 07/01/2009 06/30/2011 

Regional Adult Facility Needs 

Assessment, Site Assessment, 

Pre-Design 

2011 Planning Award 149,995 10/01/2011 09/30/2013 

Regional Juvenile Facility 

Master Plan and Regional 

Adult Facility Master Plan 

2014 Construction 

Award 999,745 10/01/2014 12/30/2015 

Renovation Youth Crisis 

Intervention Center (single 

jurisdiction) 

Total Awarded 1,290,666 

Denied Application 2012 150,000 NA NA 

Needs Assessment and Master 

Plan for Regional Juvenile 

Facility 

Tribe #7 

2010 Planning Award 150,000 10/01/2010 09/30/2012 

Needs Assessment and Master 

Plan for a single jurisdiction 

multi-service juvenile and/or 

adult facility 

Total Awarded 150,000 

Denied Application 2011 949,102 NA NA 

Construction of a communitybased correctional alternative 

facility for juveniles 

Denied Application 2012 1,000,000 NA NA 

Construction of a single 

jurisdiction criminal justice 

center facility 

Tribe #8 

2008 Planning Award 150,000 04/01/2008 05/28/2010 Regional Juvenile Facility 

Needs Assessment 

2009 Planning Award 150,000 07/01/2009 06/30/2011 Regional Juvenile Facility 

Master Plan 

Total Awarded 300,000 

Denied Application 2011 150,000 NA NA 

Infrastructure Needs 

Assessment for the regional 

youth services center 

Grand Total Awarded 1,740,666 

Note: The fourth tribe in Nebraska did not apply for or receive any TJSIP awards during our audit 

period. 

Source: OJP 

As shown above, since 2008, OJP has provided the Nebraska tribes 

$1,740,666 to support efforts to build correctional facilities. Included in these 

funds were four separate grants to Tribe Number 6 and Tribe Number 8 to create 

27 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                            

needs assessments and master plans to address the regional justice system needs 

of the four tribes, at a total cost of $590,921. Funding two separate tribes’ four 

awards with the same goal of assessing regional needs and developing 

recommendations to implement justice system needs raises the concern that these 

costs may have been for duplicative efforts. OJP stated that the awards to Tribe 

Number 6 were to fund planning efforts related to a regional adult correctional 

facility, while Tribe Number 8 received funding to plan a regional juvenile 

correctional facility. For Tribe Number 6, we found that 2009 planning funds were 

used to complete a needs assessment and master plan for a regional adult facility; 

2011 planning funds were used to complete a master plan for a juvenile regional 

facility as well as additional planning documents for an adult regional facility. For 

Tribe Number 8, 2008 planning funds were used to complete a needs assessment 

and master plan for a regional juvenile facility. For 2009 planning funds, no final 

work product was submitted to OJP; therefore, OJP stated it could not confirm how 

grant funds were used. 

In our judgment, it may have been more effective, with the potential for cost 

savings, to fund one comprehensive needs assessment and master plan that 

addressed the regional needs of the four tribes – including adult and juvenile 

corrections – rather than funding multiple tribes to create different needs 

assessments and master plans at a cost of $590,921. 

Additionally, because the Nebraska tribes thought obtaining funds for a 

regional facility would not be possible, Tribe Number 7 eventually sought and was 

awarded $150,000 in TJSIP funding to create an entirely separate needs 

assessment and master plan for a single jurisdiction juvenile and/or adult facility. 

Although Tribe Number 7 successfully completed a master plan, it did not obtain 

construction funds through the TJSIP. According to OJP, the 2011 application was 

denied because, although it was for a regional alternative facility with short-term 

holding, the application received a peer review score that OJP does not generally 

fund. OJP further stated that the 2012 application was denied because the proposal 

was for a single jurisdiction facility and $1,000,000 would not have been enough 

funding to construct a facility.32 Because the tribe did not receive construction 

funds, Tribe Number 7 is no longer pursuing plans for construction and its master 

plan will go unused. 

Tribe Number 6 was ultimately successful in obtaining $999,745 in 2014 to 

renovate an existing facility into a youth crisis intervention center that would serve 

only Tribe Number 6. However, the overall needs of the four Nebraska tribes have 

not been met as the three remaining Nebraska tribes still have a need for a 

correctional facility. A regional facility, funded in part with the money spent on 

duplicate and unused planning products, could have been more cost effective in 

terms of construction costs as well as staffing and operations for BIA instead of 

staffing two or more separate facilities. Given the Nebraska tribes’ unmet regional 

32 BJA has funded other projects that did not provide sufficient funding to construct the entire 

facility. See the Pueblo of Laguna section of this report. 

28 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

 

                                                            

needs and the idle funds associated with Tribe Number 4, we believe BJA could be 

more diligent when awarding TJSIP funds to ensure the most cost-effective projects 

are funded. 

Pueblo of Laguna 

We previously issued an audit of two OJP grants totaling $1,767,373 awarded 

to Pueblo of Laguna in Laguna, New Mexico, under the TJSIP.33 The audit found 

several grant management weaknesses, including that Pueblo of Laguna: (1) was 

operating under an expired indirect cost rate, (2) was not conducting suspension 

and debarment checks for contractors paid with grant funds, (3) did not fully 

achieve one of the five objectives for one of its grants, and (4) did not comply with 

a special condition of one of its grants. Additionally, during our prior audit, Pueblo 

of Laguna officials told the OIG that, as of June 2014, one of the two TJSIP grants 

for $1 million, awarded in FY 2012 to fund a juvenile detention facility, had not yet 

been used. 

As of September 30, 2015, Pueblo of Laguna had not spent any of the 

$1 million TJSIP grant, which was expected to fund a portion of a $33 million 

multi-purpose facility for all justice programs including detention, police, courts, 

and probation. According to the grant application, the tribe was pursuing funding 

for the remaining cost. As such, BJA awarded these TJSIP grant funds before 

Pueblo of Laguna had secured the remaining funds for construction. Pueblo of 

Laguna was not able to draw any grant funds until all funding to build the facility 

was secured. On August 27, 2015, OJP approved a GAN submitted by Pueblo of 

Laguna to extend the project period to September 30, 2016, because the grantee 

was working on project funding. OJP stated that by preventing the grantee from 

accessing the funds it performed its due diligence since the award would be useless 

unless additional outside funding was obtained. However, $1 million in TJSIP grant 

funds has remained idle for 3 years and may never be used if the tribe cannot 

obtain outside funding, while other applicants, such as the Nebraska tribes 

described previously, did not receive funding for other tribal justice projects. We 

believe BJA could be more diligent when awarding TJSIP funds to ensure 

construction-ready projects are funded. 

Based on our analysis, the due diligence performed by BJA on the TJSIP 

applications was not adequate to properly assess each tribe’s need or evaluate 

BIA’s ability to operate and maintain the facilities after construction. As a result, 

TJSIP grantees were awarded funds: (1) in excess of stated need, (2) to construct 

facilities that did not support the statutory authority of the TJSIP, (3) that did not 

meet the overall needs of regionally based tribes, and (4) that remained unspent 

33 U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, Audit of the Office of Justice 

Programs Bureau of Justice Assistance Correctional Systems and Correctional Alternatives on Tribal 

Lands Program Grants Awarded to Pueblo of Laguna, Laguna, New Mexico, Audit Report Number 

GR-60-15-003 (December 2014), examined whether costs claimed under the grants were allowable, 

supported, and in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, guidelines, and terms and conditions 

of the grants. 

29 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

for years after the award. As a result, we recommend that OJP remedy 

$10,720,232 relating to grants to the Nisqually Tribe. We also recommend that OJP 

enhance its due diligence process to ensure sufficient comprehensive justice 

planning has been completed before construction or renovation, which includes 

assessing alternative treatment needs. This may include requiring and verifying 

additional information that is currently not required as part of the application 

materials - such as an assessment of bed space needs, BIA assessment of need and 

support, a complete construction or renovation plan, and inmate population 

statistics for more than a 6 month period - as well as assessing the overall impact 

of awards to ensure the grants will meet tribes’ needs and allow them to fully open, 

operate, and maintain the facilities. This also includes enhancing its process to 

deobligate funds more quickly if TJSIP grantees are not prepared for construction. 

OJP’s Oversight and Management of the TJSIP Program Post Award 

As previously described, as of September 2014, according to BJA officials, 

there were three BJA program managers assigned to the administration of the 

TJSIP – one managed the competitive awarding process and two monitored 

grantees once awards are made. OJP stated that while different staff may take the 

lead for certain aspects of oversight and management, all of the BJA staff, including 

BJA program managers, supervisors, and managers, work collaboratively 

throughout the grant cycle. As part of the oversight activities completed by BJA, 

these program managers participate in biweekly meetings, review semiannual 

progress reports submitted by grantees, and conduct site visits and desk reviews. 

Quarterly, BJA has a conference call with BIA to discuss grantees and any issues. 

Finally, BJA utilizes T&TA providers as another oversight mechanism to determine 

the status and progress of each TJSIP grantee. Despite these oversight activities, 

we identified several instances in which BJA’s oversight and management of TJSIP 

awards was inadequate, which resulted in the misuse and ineffective use of TJSIP 

funds. 

Navajo Nation Construction Grant Awards 

After OJP awarded the $70 million in grants to NDPS, NDPS learned it could 

not build the entire justice complex with TJSIP funds and therefore increased the 

sizes and bed space at the two correctional facilities. We found that with regard to 

the correctional facility in Tuba City, Arizona, from February 2010 to 

February 2014, NDPS submitted progress reports to BJA that referenced the March 

2007 master plan but that also reported gradual increases in the size of the 

correctional facility from 48 beds, to 62 beds, and then to 132 beds, which far 

exceeded the master plan. In addition, we found that during the grant period, BJA 

conducted two site visits, including a visit while the facility was under construction. 

Despite the information presented in the progress reports and conducting site 

visits, during our audit we received no evidence to suggest that BJA officials were 

aware of the project increases or initiated any formal process to review and 

approve amended plans for an expanded facility that would justify the change in 

project size. 

30 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

 

                                                            

 

BJA stated that even though NDPS changed the project in terms of capacity 

and number of inmate beds, it was apparent to BJA from the outset that the Tuba 

City project was going to be around 132 beds. BJA further stated that a scope 

change was not required because the overall size of the facility remained consistent 

with the application. OJP told us that a change in bed-space alone would not 

require a GAN, as the total square footage listed in the application of 111,848 SF 

was ultimately the size of the correctional facility built, even though the 111,848 SF 

matched the original size of the entire justice complex per the March 2007 master 

plan.34 In BJA’s view, that size did not depend on the number of beds or the 

portion allocated to bed space, but rather the total square footage listed in the 

application. Despite BJA’s statements, the correctional facility ultimately built was 

just 87,709 SF, which is not the same square footage listed in the application. 

Therefore, based on BJA’s statements it appears a GAN was required since the total 

square footage listed in the application compared to what was ultimately built 

changed by 24,139 SF. Using the budgeted cost per square foot of $250 from the 

application materials provided by NDPS, the 24,139 SF discrepancy amounted to 

$6,034,750 in excess funds. Such a large dollar value difference should have 

required additional BJA review and an assessment on how those funds should be 

used. 

Figure 4 

NDPS - Tuba City Justice Center 

Source: BJA 

Additionally, the OJP Financial Guide states that grantees are required to 

submit a GAN for changes in scope that affect the budget and, as indicated, the 

increase in bed space at Tuba City from the original plan listed in the March 2007 

master plan increased the total cost of the correctional facility by approximately 

$25 million. Additionally, as a matter of prudence, such changes should have 

required approval as the additional space necessitates additional resources to 

manage larger capacities and should have been coordinated with BIA. We believe 

34 We also note that OJP’s position that a GAN was not required conflicts with information we 

received from a BJA official during our fieldwork, on March 19, 2015, who told us such a change would 

require OJP approval. 

31 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
                                                            

the GAN process exists for scope changes to ensure the changes are allowable, 

appropriate, and necessary. During the grant period, the Tuba City correctional 

facility underwent an extensive change that affected budgets, building square 

footage, and bed space, which we believe required the NDPS to go through the 

scope change process. 

Overall, BJA was unable to provide us with documentation approving or 

justifying a 132-bed facility, which represented 275 percent of the 48 inmate beds 

at the Tuba City facility stated in the NDPS’s March 2007 master plan, which was 

used as the basis for developing the Navajo Nation’s grant application, at an 

additional cost of approximately $25 million.35 In our opinion, the project scope 

was expanded due to excess funds being available rather than based on 

demonstrated need, which resulted in a correctional facility being built that is 

materially in excess of stated need and that is not fully operational. 

With regard to the other NDPS detention facility in Kayenta, Arizona, NDPS 

provided documentation to OIG showing the re-design of the corrections facility 

from 32 adult beds to 80 adult beds starting in January 2011, which was over a 

year after the TJSIP grant was awarded. During the grant period, BJA conducted 

two visits to the Kayenta facility, including one during construction. Despite 

conducting site visits, during our audit we received no evidence to suggest that BJA 

officials were aware of the project increases or initiated any formal process to 

review and approve amended plans for an expanded facility that would justify the 

change in project size. 

Figure 5 

NDPS - Kayenta Justice Center 

Source: BJA 

We found that NDPS submitted a GAN to BJA on March 29, 2012, which 

requested a scope change to construct a support building in addition to the 

corrections facility and also mentioned as background information that “with the 

programming changes instead of a 32-bed facility, [Navajo Department of 

35 The total $25 million in additional cost to build the correctional facility included $20 million 

in grant funds. 

32 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

                                                            

 

Corrections] will construct an 80-bed adult correction facility with a 4-bed 

temporary holding for juvenile[s].” 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. This 

request was approved by OJP on August 7, 2012. While the expansion from 32 to 

80 adult beds was referenced in the GAN request, OJP’s approval of the GAN was 

connected to the construction of the support building and did not reference the 

increase in number of inmate beds. Specifically, OJP stated 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 [Navajo Department of Corrections] will be adding a support building to 

construct with funds. Therefore, the scope of work will change.” We were not 

provided documentation that the change in bed space from 32 to 80 adult beds was 

ever officially reviewed for appropriateness or approved by OJP. We, therefore, 

concluded that OJP’s approval of the GAN was only for the support building. 

In addition to its own oversight activities, to ensure the projects were 

effectively managed, BJA awarded a grant to T&TA provider Justice Solutions Group 

(JSG) to assist tribes with the planning necessary to establish tribal correctional 

facilities that are appropriate for the intended population, and contracted with T&TA 

provider Alpha Corporation (Alpha Corp) to assist in ensuring that the NDPS was 

implementing the construction projects in the most cost effective and efficient 

manner and meeting proposed project timelines.36 From our review it appears JSG 

did not make assessments for either Navajo Nation project since it was not a 

requirement to use these services. It was JSG’s understanding that when these 

awards were made, the projects were shovel ready. Based on the information 

provided to JSG, the architectural designs were already completed through the 

Navajo Nation-wide master plan. Therefore, no assessment was needed. However, 

since the project scope changed subsequent to the award of funds a new 

assessment of need may have identified and prevented NDPS from building facilities 

at least 250-percent larger than its stated need. 

As part of its T&TA services, Alpha Corp reviewed pay applications from 

contractors, any modifications to contracts, and toured facilities throughout 

construction. The contract with Alpha Corp also stated that one of the major tasks 

was to ensure grant recipients were utilizing efficient and cost-effective strategies 

to achieve project goals as proposed in the grant application. OJP also clarified that 

Alpha Corp’s role was to apply its specialized knowledge and expertise in 

construction matters to assist grantees and BJA with construction project 

management and implementation matters, including with maintaining cost 

effectiveness and efficiency. Grants management and implementation matters, and 

overall grants program and grantee oversight, are the responsibility of BJA. 

36 Throughout the report we refer to the T&TA awards as grants. However, OJP identified 

these awards as cooperative agreements, which generally require more involvement by the federal 

government. 

33 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                            

     

Under the T&TA contract, Alpha Corp was required to provide site visit 

reports to BJA after each visit to each facility location, which provided BJA a status 

of the project. According to Alpha Corp, it produced site visit reports for BJA that 

clearly noted the status of the project scope and any changes, budget, and 

schedule as well as Recovery Act requirements; actual project conditions; quality 

control; project control activities; and any risks. 

We reviewed all the Alpha Corp site visit reports provided by OJP, as follows. 

 Tuba City, Arizona 

For Tuba City, BJA provided eight site visit reports starting on June 15, 2010, 

through December 12, 2012. In all eight of the site visit reports, Alpha Corp noted 

that the project consisted of designing and constructing a 132-bed correctional 

facility. In Site Visit Report Numbers 1 and 2, Alpha Corp noted 92,000 as the total 

square footage of the correctional facility. This was slightly modified for Site Visit 

Report Numbers 3 through 8 to 89,623 SF. However, in the application materials, 

the Navajo Nation had requested $38,587,560 to construct a 111,848 SF 

correctional facility. BJA was provided information through these site visit reports 

to identify an approximate 21,000 SF discrepancy between the stated project size 

in the site visit reports and application budget size. Using the cost per SF of $321 

listed in Site Visit Report Numbers 1 and 2, this amounted to a $6.7 million 

difference in cost between the application and the site visit report facility size. 

Additionally, in Site Visit Report Number 2, Alpha Corp noted that the Tuba 

City facility was being re-designed with a possible expansion of up to 48,000 SF. 

Again, BJA should have noticed the difference between the original project size and 

project sizes listed in each site visit report. 

For four of the eight site visit reports, Site Visit Report Numbers 5 through 8, 

Alpha Corp included an attachment from the NDPS project manager showing the 

original project scope was 48 beds, while all eight of Alpha Corp’s site visit reports 

noted a project size of 132 beds.37 Again, BJA was provided information through 

these site visit reports to identify a change in scope from 48 beds to 132 beds. In 

Site Visit Report Number 3, Alpha Corp included an attachment from the NDPS 

project manager showing the total project cost of $38,587,560 for the entire 

judicial complex at Tuba City– not just the correctional facility– which was the 

amount shown in the BJA-approved budget for just the correctional facility. Alpha 

Corp’s site visit report listed the total judicial complex cost at $58,899,750. BJA 

was provided information through these site visit reports to identify the 

$20,312,190 difference in cost compared to that provided by the NDPS project 

manager for the total judicial complex. The attachment to Alpha Corp’s site visit 

report from the NDPS project manager also indicated that when the project was 

37 The original project size of 48 beds noted by the NDPS project manager matched the 

project size from the March 2007 master plan, which was referenced in the application materials and 

was the basis for the Navajo Nation’s budget request. 

34 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

  

advertised for project management, architectural, and construction manager 

services in 2009, it was determined that the March 2007 master plan budget would 

be maintained. 

 Kayenta, Arizona 

For Kayenta, BJA provided 10 site visit reports starting on June 15, 2010, 

through July 22, 2013. As shown in Table 5 below, Alpha Corp noted the project 

size during each site visit. 

Table 5 

Alpha Corp Site Visit Report Building Sizes 

A 

SITE 

VISIT 

B 

DATE 

C 

GRANT 

APPLICATION 

FACILITY 

SIZE 

D 

CORRECTIONAL 

FACILITY SF AS 

NOTED IN THE 

ALPHA CORP 

SITE VISIT 

E 

SUPPORT 

BUILDING 

SF AS 

NOTED IN 

THE ALPHA 

CORP SITE 

VISIT 

F 

DIFFERENCE IN 

SF BETWEEN 

GRANT 

APPLICATION 

AND ALPHA 

CORP SITE 

VISIT REPORT 

[C-(D-E)] 

H 

DIFFERENCE 

($) AT 

$250/SFa 

[F X $250] 

1 06/15/10 91,036 29,000 - 62,036 $15,509,000 

2 12/22/10 91,036 29,000 - 62,036 15,509,000 

3 03/24/11 91,036 52,682 - 38,354 9,588,500 

4 06/22/11 91,036 52,682 - 38,354 9,588,500 

5 11/10/11 91,036 54,650 13,552 22,834 5,708,500 

6 06/18/12 91,036 53,190 13,552 24,294 6,073,500 

7 08/17/12 91,036 53,009 13,427 24,600 6,150,000 

8 01/07/13 91,036 53,009 13,427 24,600 6,150,000 

9 04/15/13 91,036 53,009 13,427 24,600 6,150,000 

10 07/22/13 91,036 53,009 13,427 24,600 6,150,000 

a The cost per SF used to calculate the dollar value difference was $250 per SF, which was the 

estimated cost listed in Navajo Nation’s application materials. 

Source: OJP 

In all 10 of the site visit reports for Kayenta, Alpha Corp noted the project 

size of the adult correctional facility, which increased and did not match the 

application project size. BJA had information from these site visit reports to identify 

the differences related to the correctional facility from what was proposed in the 

grant application. Further, in Site Visit Report Number 2 Alpha Corp stated that the 

project may undergo a redesign, while Site Visit Report Number 3 stated that the 

project had undergone a redesign that resulted in major scope and programmatic 

changes. From these site visit reports, BJA had the information to identify 

significant discrepancies between the square footages and building cost listed in the 

application and the project size presented by the Navajo Nation during each site 

visit for the correctional facility and subsequently added support building. 

35 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

 

                                                            

Overall, despite the additional oversight activities performed by the T&TA 

provider, BJA provided no evidence to suggest that it was aware of the project 

increases or initiated any formal process to review and approve amended plans for 

an expanded facility that would justify the change in project size. Ultimately, the 

facilities were built at least 250-percent larger than the stated need and cannot be 

fully staffed or operated by BIA. 

In our judgment, given the availability to BJA of critical information that was 

referenced in the grant applications and should have been readily apparent through 

review of progress reports, on-site visits, desk reviews, and T&TA provider site visit 

reports, we believe BJA had or should have had sufficient knowledge to prevent the 

unapproved and unjustified expansion of the correctional facilities sizes beyond the 

stated need. During our previous audit of the Navajo Nation, we found that the 

Navajo Nation lacked sufficient resources to fully staff or operate either facility built 

with TJSIP grant funds. 

Tribe Number 9 

Tribe Number 9, located in Montana, was awarded a planning grant for 

$150,000 on September 29, 2009, to fund the development of a comprehensive 

master plan that would systematically examine the full range of adult detention, 

criminal justice service, support options, and community-based alternatives. The 

comprehensive master plan was completed by a contractor in May 2012 for 

$124,697.38 

In November 2014, we met with Tribe Number 9 officials regarding the 

status of the $124,697 master plan and discovered that they had no knowledge of 

the master plan until we brought this information to their attention and were 

generally unaware of any related activity to pursue construction. According to 

tribal officials, there is a great need for a correctional facility. However, the original 

planning team involved with this grant was no longer employed at the tribe, which 

is why Tribe Number 9 officials we spoke with were unaware of the project. 

Additionally, since the master plan was completed in 2012, Tribe Number 9 

had not had any contact from BJA and had not received any information on how to 

proceed with construction. This condition again demonstrates our concerns over 

BJA’s oversight and technical assistance with the TJSIP program. In our judgment, 

the longer the master plan sits unused, the more likely it is to become irrelevant, 

resulting in ineffective use of grant funding. OJP explained that BJA does not have 

any control over a tribe’s transfer of knowledge process when there is staff turnover 

or a change in administration. Although we agree that BJA may not be aware of 

tribal staff changes and may not be able to fund every construction project 

identified through planning grants or the Tribal Justice Systems Strategic Planning 

38 This price includes the cost of the contractor, but does not take into account grant 

administration costs incurred by Tribe Number 9. 

36 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

                                                            

 

Program, completing planning efforts without the intention of assisting tribes with 

implementing plan recommendations does not appear to be the best use of limited 

resources. Also, given the resources available through T&TA, which is available to 

current TJSIP grantees as well as non-TJSIP tribes seeking assistance, it seems 

reasonable to offer assistance. 

Based on our review of OJP’s oversight and management of the TJSIP 

grantees, and particularly the examples described above, we recommend OJP 

ensure any current or future facilities are constructed or renovated in a timely 

fashion, to a size that meets tribal needs that is also within the funding availability 

and intent of the TJSIP program. Finally, we recommend that OJP develop a 

process to ensure planning grantees or the Tribal Justice Systems Strategic 

Planning Program grantees are provided the tools to implement recommendations 

that resulted from the planning process, which may include providing outreach and 

technical assistance. 

OJP’s Implementation of Services Provided by Training and Technical 

Assistance Providers 

As discussed previously, to support the TJSIP BJA utilizes T&TA providers.39 

OJP awarded four grants, including two non-competitive supplement awards to JSG 

and one grant, including two non-competitive supplement awards to the NIJC to 

assist TJSIP grantees or other non-TJSIP grantees through the justice system 

planning process. OJP also competitively awarded a time and materials task order 

against a General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule contract 

to Alpha Corp to assist the TJSIP grantees during the construction phase. 

Planning Grantee Training and Technical Assistance Providers 

As shown in Table 6, JSG was awarded grants by OJP in 2008 and 2009 

totaling $7,694,615 to provide T&TA to TJSIP grant recipients in 2008, 2009, and 

2010, including Recovery Act TJSIP grant recipients. 

39 We reviewed the T&TA services provided by three T&TA providers to TJSIP grantees. 

37 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                            

Table 6 

TJSIP T&TA Grants Awarded to JSG 

GRANT AWARD 

AWARD 

START DATE 

AWARD 

END DATE 

AWARD 

AMOUNT 

2008-IP-BX-K001 02/01/2008 09/30/2010 $999,871 

2009-S4-BX-K146 09/01/2009 02/28/2011 369,394 

2009-IP-BX-K002 

Original Award 08/01/2009 07/31/2011 999,794 

Supplement 1 09/17/2010 09/30/2013 587,614 

2009-ST-B9-0101 

Original Award 09/01/2009 08/31/2011 4,487,335 

Supplement 1 09/24/2010 06/30/2015 250,607 

TOTAL AWARDED $7,694,615 

Source: OJP 

Grant Numbers 2008-IP-BX-K001 and 2009-IP-BX-K002 were awarded to 

assist tribes with the planning necessary to establish tribal correctional facilities 

that are appropriate for the intended population, supportive of cultural and 

traditional values, safe and secure when completed, and adhere to current 

standards regarding correctional operations, programs, and design. 

Grant Number 2009-S4-BX-K146 was awarded to host and deliver Tribal 

Detention Administrators Forums and TJSIP Workshops to tribal jail administrators 

and planning teams. Recovery Act Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0101 was awarded 

to provide tribal communities funded under this program with knowledge, skills, 

and a methodology to develop effectively functioning justice systems that promote 

public safety by utilizing a range of facilities, sanctions, and services consistent with 

offender risks and needs. 

As shown in Figure 6, we found that JSG received funds in addition to OJP 

grant funds it received to provide T&TA to TJSIP grantees, either directly through 

contracts with the tribes that JSG was tasked with providing T&TA, or as subawards 

of contracts with the tribes that JSG was tasked with providing T&TA. The contracts 

or subawards were entered into by the tribe and paid with the tribe’s planning grant 

funds to complete required planning products, such as a master plan and needs 

assessment. These contracts were in addition to OJP grant funds awarded to JSG 

to provide T&TA to assist with the planning process to complete a master plan. 

Through the T&TA grants, JSG employs individuals as employees or consultants to 

provide T&TA services to tribes.40 These employees and consultants also contract 

directly with the tribes and are paid with the tribes’ planning grant funds to 

complete planning products. 

40 According to the OJP Financial Guide, a consultant is an individual who provides 

professional advice or services. These consultants had contracts with JSG to perform services and 

were not employees of JSG. According to JSG, JSG does not have any authority over consultants 

outside of the work performed through the T&TA grants. 

38 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

Figure 6 

BJA’s Training and Technical Assistance Provider Business Model
 

Note: Blue indicates contract funds received by JSG; pink indicates contract funds received by 

consultants and employees; and green indicates TJSIP grant funds. 

Source: Tribe Number 10, Tribe Number 9, Tribe Number 8, and OJP 

BJA’s other T&TA provider, the NIJC, has a consultant who provides a 

substantial amount of T&TA to grantees. According to NIJC’s consultant, it does not 

contract directly with the tribes for which it provides T&TA because this would result 

in a COI. 

Undefined Training and Technical Assistance Services 

During our review of grant award materials, solicitations, and interviews with 

BJA officials, we were unable to determine specific services that T&TA providers 

should be providing to TJSIP planning grantees as technical assistance. According 

to BJA, the scope of work provided under the T&TA grants is broad, but the general 

idea is to assist grantees with the planning process. 

39 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

 

According to BJA, the major milestones of the planning process include: 

 appointing a project manager, 

 attending an OJP-provided training workshop, 

 hiring a consultant, 

 completing a community profile review, 

 conducting a case processing review, 

 conducting a data review, 

 identifying the goals and objectives of the project, 

 creating the preliminary project budget, and 

 submitting a master plan to BJA. 

The services BJA has stated that are outside the scope of T&TA include: 

(1) development of a master plan, which includes a justice system assessment, 

data collection, and plan development; (2) preparation of architectural design for 

justice system facilities; and (3) implementation of master plan recommendations 

and findings. BJA officials explained that as the T&TA provider, JSG provides 

training to grantees for the master plan development and ad-hoc type work for 

grantees to help them with the planning process. They explained that the master 

plan is above and beyond the T&TA services per the grant agreement. BJA further 

explained that T&TA providers can provide services directly to a grantee for a fee, 

but the awards must be made in accordance with DOJ procurement rules and 

regulations. According to BJA officials, they expect T&TA providers to disclose extra 

work, but until 2013 there was no requirement for certifying supplemental 

fee-for-service activities between T&TA providers and grantees. BJA officials told us 

that they provide grantees with COI criteria, which requires grantees to conduct all 

procurement transactions with open, free, and fair competition. The OJP Financial 

Guide also requires grantees to be free from personal or organizational COI, both in 

advice and appearance. 

However, we determined that some of the services provided by the T&TA 

providers under T&TA grants from OJP coincide with the services contracted for an 

additional fee that BJA has stated are outside the scope of T&TA. For example, the 

T&TA providers have been tasked with assisting at each phase of the planning 

process. This includes the master plan development process. Tribes contract to 

complete master plans for an additional fee. As a result, there is potential overlap 

between needs assessment and master planning services, and assisting TJSIP 

grantees in achieving each major milestone of project planning. BJA’s T&TA 

40 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

 

 

services are not adequately defined to determine what services are provided by 

T&TA providers through OJP grants. 

Currently, BJA’s T&TA providers are permitted to solicit additional business 

from the tribes directly or through subawards. Because BJA has not adequately 

defined T&TA services, it is difficult to determine if services contracted directly by 

the tribe should be covered with T&TA funds rather than tribes contracting with 

firms to complete services at an additional cost to the tribe. Additionally, because 

T&TA providers provide services in addition to the T&TA services, there is 

motivation to solicit new business rather than perform T&TA services to existing 

grantees. 

Subsequent to our initial work, OJP officials sought to clarify the scope of 

T&TA services. OJP stated that TJSIP T&TA was designed to provide tribes with 

guidance on how to develop a master plan and training on what needed to be 

included in master plan development. However, we believe this description does 

not fully describe the role of the T&TA providers. We reviewed the work of T&TA 

providers, which included the following: (1) conducting site visits to facilitate 

meetings with planning teams to address the planning process; (2) providing 

feedback on construction documents, plans, or the feasibility of a project and 

describing any issues foreseen with the project; (3) reviewing, writing, or providing 

Request for Proposals (RFP)/ Request for Quotes (RFQ); (4) raising questions to the 

tribes about the projects; (5) assisting tribes to determine the elements of the 

mission and vision to incorporate in the master plan; (6) providing design concepts; 

(7) assisting with developing operational plans that include staffing; and 

(8) providing quick needs assessments, establishing short-term and long-term 

program and project goals, and then conceptualizing the project. We therefore 

found the T&TA providers were much more involved than simply providing guidance 

and training about master plans to grantees. We also believe the fact that OJP has 

not clearly defined T&TA services has contributed to any inconsistent 

understandings of what is included among T&TA services. 

OJP Conflict of Interest Policy 

The OJP Financial Guide requires grantees to be free from personal or 

organizational COI, both in advice and appearance. As it relates to a COI in advice, 

the OJP Financial Guide further states that, recipients should not participate in any 

decisions, approval, disapproval, recommendations, investigation decisions, or any 

other proceeding concerning any person or organization with whom they are 

negotiating or who has an arrangement concerning prospective employment, has a 

financial interest, or for other reasons can have less than an unbiased transaction 

with the recipient. As it relates to a COI in appearance, the OJP Financial Guide 

states that recipients should avoid any action that might result in, or create the 

appearance of: (1) using one’s official position for private gain; (2) giving special 

treatment to any person; or (3) losing complete independence or objectivity. 

41 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

According to OJP OGC officials, it is OJP's position that T&TA recipients 

cannot seek or obtain direct contracts with the same grantees to whom they are 

providing T&TA services. OGC officials explained that this practice would, at a 

minimum, create the appearance of a COI in violation of OJP's Financial Guide. In 

comparison, according to BJA policy from FY 2013, determining if an apparent COI 

exists depends on the specific facts of each case. The basic principle to evaluate 

whether a tribe may contract directly with a T&TA provider is that all procurement 

transactions must be conducted with open, free, and fair competition in accordance 

with DOJ procurement rules and regulations. We found that OJP’s position was 

more stringent than BJA policy. 

It was JSG’s understanding through conversations with OJP that it could 

compete and contract directly with tribes. However, based on our review, we 

identified several instances where a COI existed in advice or appearance as a result 

of contracting directly with tribes. 

 Tribe Number 10 

Under the Recovery Act, Tribe Number 10 contracted with an architectural 

firm for the design of its adult correctional facility. The architectural firm 

subawarded to JSG for $91,427 to: (1) validate population analysis and bed 

requirements, the operational program, and the architectural space program; and 

(2) provide building organization options and facility concept designs. The 

architectural firm also subawarded to Consultant Number 1 for $14,850 to assist 

with adding cultural aspects to the facility that were not originally included in the 

plan. According to officials from Tribe Number 10, the architectural firm had a 

previous relationship with JSG. Due to the lack of documentation, we could not 

determine if the procurement of these subawards was conducted with open, free, 

and fair competition as required by BJA’s policy. 

While JSG was contracted by the architectural firm, BJA had also requested 

JSG, as the T&TA provider, review Tribe Number 10’s designs to provide feedback. 

JSG therefore reviewed the designs it helped create. Because of the relationship 

with the tribe, JSG could not impartially perform its duties as the T&TA provider, 

which is a COI in appearance. We therefore questioned the $91,427 that was paid 

to JSG and $14,850 paid to Consultant Number 1 as unallowable due to the COI. 

 Tribe Number 9 

In 2009, Tribe Number 9 received one planning grant from OJP for $150,000. 

In response to a RFP for the development of a comprehensive master plan, 

published in May 2011, Tribe Number 9 received two proposals – one for $86,401 

submitted by an architectural firm and one for $92,828 submitted by Consultant 

Number 1. In its proposal, Consultant Number 1 partnered with JSG and one 

additional company to provide Tribe Number 9 with a comprehensive master plan 

and referenced JSG projects. Further, according to Tribe Number 9, Consultant 

42 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

Number 1 was also related to Tribe Number 9’s Chief Judge, the project manager 

for the TJSIP grant. Tribe Number 9 ultimately selected Consultant Number 1 to 

develop the master plan. 

The master plan was completed in May 2012 by Consultant Number 1, JSG, 

and a third firm. Nevertheless, on May 29, 2012, after the master plan had been 

completed, the tribe modified the contract with Consultant Number 1 to include 

outlining concept design services to complete the original master plan even though 

these services were already included in the original scope of work. The modification 

increased the contract cost by $31,970 or 34 percent of the original contract 

amount. According to the invoice submitted by Consultant Number 1, the services 

under the modification were provided from July 1, 2012, to August 31, 2012, which 

was after the master plan was completed in May 2012. 

From our review, a potential COI in advice existed with JSG and Consultant 

Number 1 because JSG and Consultant Number 1 had financial interests in Tribe 

Number 9 through the separate contract with the tribe while providing advice to the 

tribe through the T&TA. It would not be possible for JSG or Consultant Number 1 to 

remain unbiased in providing T&TA for work in which they had a financial interest 

because they also worked as contractors for Tribe Number 9. Additionally, as the 

T&TA provider, JSG was tasked with assisting the tribes in cost effectively creating 

a comprehensive master plan. As the tribe’s consultant, JSG and Consultant 

Number 1 added approximately $31,970 for services that were part of the original 

bid in addition to the amount paid under the original contract amount of $92,727. 

We questioned $124,697 that was paid to JSG and Consultant Number 1 as 

unallowable due to the COI and unjustified costs incurred above the original 

contract amount. 

 Tribe Number 8 

Tribe Number 8 received two planning grants from OJP, one in 2008 for 

$150,000 and one in 2009 for $150,000. We found that Tribe Number 8 entered 

into two contracts to complete a needs assessment and master plan using grant 

funds. One contract was directly with Consultant Number 2 to provide professional 

consulting services in the area of needs assessment, planning, and community 

development. Consultant Number 2 received $6,785 from both TJSIP planning 

grants awarded to Tribe Number 8 for services in addition to payments received 

from JSG for providing services under BJA T&TA grants. The services provided by 

Consultant Number 2 to Tribe Number 8 to assist the tribe through the planning 

process appear to be the same services provided through the BJA T&TA grant 

awarded to JSG. As a consultant of JSG, the consultant knew or should have 

reasonably known these services were to be provided by JSG at no cost, and 

therefore the contract with Tribe Number 8 was inappropriate. The second contract 

was with JSG to conduct the needs assessment and master planning. JSG received 

$52,541 to complete Tribe Number 8’s master plan, in addition to OJP grant funds it 

received for providing T&TA to assist Tribe Number 8 with the planning process to 

complete a master plan. 

43 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

                                                            

From our review, a potential COI in advice existed with JSG and Consultant 

Number 2 because JSG and Consultant Number 2 had financial interests in Tribe 

Number 8 through the separate contracts with the tribe while providing advice to 

tribes through T&TA. Therefore, we questioned $59,326 that was paid to JSG and 

Consultant Number 2. 

 Tribe Number 7 

Tribe Number 7 received a planning grant in 2010 for $150,000. We found 

that Tribe Number 7 non-competitively awarded a contract to three consultants to 

complete the needs assessment and master plan. One of the three consultants was 

Consultant Number 2, who received $30,998 from the TJSIP grant through this 

contract. Consultant Number 2 was simultaneously providing advice to tribes 

through T&TA, thereby creating at a minimum a potential COI in advice since 

Consultant Number 2 had a financial interest in Tribe Number 7 through the 

separate contract with the tribe. Therefore, we questioned $30,998 paid to 

Consultant Number 2. 

 Tribe Number 11 

Tribe Number 11, located in Arizona, received a planning grant in 2010 for 

$150,000 to plan a juvenile detention facility. According to Tribe Number 11, JSG, 

as the T&TA provider, helped write the RFP for the planning contractor and provided 

a list of organizations to send the RFP. We reviewed the list of justice planning 

firms provided to the tribe and found that the first listed on JSG’s list of potential 

contractors was JSG itself. This created a COI in appearance since JSG used its 

position as the T&TA provider for private gain by recommending itself as a 

contractor. 

The tribe ultimately selected a different contractor, a partnership between an 

architectural firm and JSG Employee Number 3, to provide planning and concept 

design architectural services for the proposed juvenile detention treatment center.41 

The final product of the contract was a comprehensive master plan, at a total cost 

of $91,494. Tribe Number 11 subsequently entered into a second contract with the 

same partnership that included JSG Employee Number 3, to develop the Treatment 

Program and Operations Protocols to be implemented by Tribe Number 11. The 

scope of services provided by JSG Employee Number 3 was to facilitate monthly 

team meetings, assist in the review and evaluation of programs and facilities, 

provide site selection assistance, and advance the design concept. The partnership 

that included JSG Employee Number 3 received $45,000 from the TJSIP grant 

through the second contract. 

41 The individual identified here as JSG Employee Number 3 was a consultant who became an 

employee in January 2010. 

44 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

 

                                                            

 

Although technical assistance has not been adequately defined by BJA, we 

believe the services provided through the $45,000 contract, including facilitating 

monthly team meetings, assisting in reviews and evaluations, and assisting with 

site selection, were services that were provided through the T&TA grants awarded 

to JSG.42 Additionally, as an employee of JSG, JSG Employee Number 3 knew or 

should have reasonably known these services were to be provided by JSG at no 

cost and therefore inappropriately contracted with Tribe Number 11. Moreover, a 

potential COI in advice existed with JSG Employee Number 3 because JSG 

Employee Number 3 had a financial interest in Tribe Number 11 through the 

separate contract with the tribe while providing advice to tribes through T&TA. We 

therefore questioned $136,494 paid to the partnership with JSG Employee Number 

3 through the two contracts with Tribe Number 11. 

 Tribe Number 12 

Tribe Number 12, located in Arizona, received a planning grant in 2009 for 

$146,183 to create a comprehensive master plan for the development, building, 

and operation of a correctional facility. We found that Tribe Number 12 awarded a 

contract to JSG for $109,230 to complete the needs assessment and master plan. 

The total amount paid under the contract to JSG was $105,723. To implement the 

recommendations of the needs assessment and master plan, Tribe Number 12 

subsequently received a renovation grant in 2011 for $976,935 to develop and 

outfit a correctional alternative facility through the renovation of an existing 

building that formerly housed an Indian Health Services clinic. Through this award, 

JSG was paid $179,885 through a fixed-fee contract to provide programming and 

project design. Tribe Number 12 was unable to provide documentation showing the 

contract to JSG was competitively bid. Services provided by JSG to the tribe under 

the contract included: (1) facilitating the formation of a Justice System Advisory 

Board, (2) reviewing recommendations of the comprehensive master plan, 

(3) conducting regular coordination meetings with the grant recipient to monitor 

progress, and (4) monitoring and facilitating grant reporting. 

From our review, a potential COI in advice existed with JSG because JSG 

received grant funds to provide T&TA to Tribe Number 12, while also receiving 

funds to complete the needs assessment, a master plan, and programming and 

project design. JSG could not impartially provide advice to the tribe it has a 

financial interest in through the separate contract. Therefore, we questioned 

$285,608 that was paid to JSG. Additionally, although technical assistance has not 

been adequately defined by BJA, the services described appear to be assistance 

that the T&TA provider should provide at no cost to the grantee. 

42 OJP stated that these services are not within the purview of T&TA, but our review indicates 

that T&TA providers were providing these services to TJSIP grantees. 

45 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 Tribe Number 13 

Tribe Number 13, located in Washington, received a planning grant in 2010 

for $150,000 to hire a consultant to conduct a jail feasibility study to determine the 

viability of building and operating a new jail facility on Tribe Number 13’s 

reservation. To conduct the jail feasibility study, including a needs assessment and 

master plan, Tribe Number 13 competitively awarded a contract to JSG for 

$99,480. The needs assessment and master plan was completed by JSG in June 

2013 for a total cost of $99,480. From our review, a potential COI in advice existed 

with JSG because JSG had a grant to provide advice to Tribe Number 13 through 

T&TA, while also receiving funds to complete the needs assessment and master 

plan. Therefore, we questioned $99,480 that was paid to JSG. 

According to OJP, as early as 2008, BJA contacted OJP’s OGC with specific 

questions about COIs related to T&TA providers contracting directly with TJSIP 

grantees. Based on the documentation provided by OJP, at that time, OJP’s OGC 

did not specifically prohibit direct contracting between T&TA providers and 

grantees, but cautioned against the practice due to potential COI issues. According 

to OJP, again in 2010, BJA brought the issue to OJP’s OGC, which again determined 

this practice was not specifically prohibited. In May 2011, the OIG brought the 

issue to OJP’s OGC. At that time, OJP’s OGC informed the OIG that it was OJP's 

position that T&TA recipients cannot seek or obtain direct contracts with the same 

grantees to whom they are providing T&TA services. OJP OGC officials explained to 

the OIG that this practice would, at a minimum, create the appearance of a COI in 

violation of OJP's Financial Guide. In 2013, BJA worked with OJP’s OGC to develop 

a policy to address COI issues going forward. The policy, as stated previously, 

explained that determining if a COI exists depended on the specific facts of each 

case. The basic principle to evaluate whether a tribe may contract directly with a 

T&TA provider was that all procurement transactions must be conducted with open, 

free, and fair competition in accordance with DOJ procurement rules and 

regulations. Additionally, starting in 2013, a special condition was developed and 

included in all DOJ T&TA awards. The special condition developed by OJP stated the 

following: 

Recipient understands and agrees not to engage in activities 

constituting organizational conflicts of interest, such as bidding on 

specifications that you guided as part of the provision of training and 

technical assistance under this award. Forbidden organizational 

conflicts of interest are described more fully in detail in the Federal 

Acquisition Regulations, 48 C.F.R. § 9.505. Prior approval from your 

grant manager is required for any work with a grantee. 

Had OJP developed and implemented policies and procedures based on the 

information provided in 2008, 2010, or 2011, these COIs could have been 

prevented. Additionally, based on our review, OJP’s current policy still does not 

specifically prevent T&TA providers from contracting directly with grantees. 

46 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

 

 

                                                            

Overall, when a T&TA provider assists a tribe through the planning process 

and then also enters into a separate contract with the tribe to complete the same 

planning, it creates, at a minimum, the appearance of a COI. It would not be 

possible for JSG to appear unbiased in providing T&TA for work it conducted as a 

contractor. We questioned $842,879 paid to JSG and its consultants directly by the 

tribes, including $106,277 paid by Tribe Number 10, $124,697 paid by Tribe 

Number 9, $59,326 paid by Tribe Number 8, $30,998 paid by Tribe Number 7, 

$136,494 paid by Tribe Number 11, $285,608 paid by Tribe Number 12, and 

$99,480 paid by Tribe Number 13.43 This is in addition to the $7,694,615 OJP 

awarded to JSG to provide T&TA to TJSIP grantees. Based on our analysis, BJA 

T&TA providers should not separately contract with TJSIP grantees if they have also 

been tasked with assisting through the planning process. 

Cost of Producing a Master Plan 

According to BJA, the T&TA Program was established to assist tribes in 

developing strategies to cost-effectively plan, renovate, and/or construct facilities 

associated with the incarceration and rehabilitation of juvenile and adult offenders 

subject to tribal jurisdiction. OJP awarded JSG a grant totaling $999,794 in 2009 

and a supplemental award in 2010 for $587,614 to primarily assist tribes who 

received non-Recovery Act planning awards in 2009 and 2010. JSG was to assist 

the tribes with the planning necessary to establish tribal correctional facilities that 

were appropriate for the intended population; supportive of cultural and traditional 

values; safe and secure when completed; and adhere to current standards 

regarding correctional operations, programs, and design. BJA has stated to the OIG 

that these services did not include the completion of a needs assessment or master 

plan. Of the 18 awards in 2009, 11 were for planning grants, which totaled 

$1,605,855. Of the 25 awards in 2010, 17 were for planning grants, which totaled 

$2,355,396. Overall, these awards, including T&TA funding, totaled $5,548,659. 

Through our analysis, we determined that the average cost for completion of 

a needs assessment and master plan was $85,509, which included all analysis, 

travel, and production costs charged by the consultant.44 Consequently, the total 

cost for each of the 28 planning grants from 2009 and 2010 for tribes to complete a 

needs assessment and master plan using the average cost of $85,509, would have 

been approximately $2,394,247. This is $3,154,412 less than the total awards 

made to planning grantees and to JSG. As addressed previously, JSG was also 

being paid additional funds by the tribes, through separate contracts or subawards, 

to complete needs assessments, master plans, or other design input. Therefore, 

OJP was indirectly paying JSG to complete the needs assessments, master plans, or 

43 The differences throughout the report are due to rounding. 

44 The average cost of a master plan was calculated by taking the average cost for the eight 

tribes judgmentally selected for our review to complete a master plan. Our original sample included 

11 tribes. However, of the 11 tribes, 2 had not selected a consultant to complete the master plan and 

1 completed an environmental assessment with the TJSIP grant funds. Therefore, the calculation was 

based on the results from eight tribes. 

47 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

 

 

                                                            

other design aspects, while also providing funds to JSG to facilitate the planning 

process. According to BJA officials, the cost of a master plan is significantly more 

than providing T&TA to assist with the process. However, based on our analysis 

there appears to be a material cost savings to the government if T&TA is focused on 

providing services to complete the needs assessment and master plan, which is the 

ultimate goal of the planning grants awarded under the TJSIP, rather than funding 

T&TA providers to assist tribes through the planning process. Additionally, from our 

review, we found that the average cost of a master plan completed by JSG or one 

of its consultants was $101,579, while the average cost of a master plan completed 

by an independent consultant not involved with JSG was $58,726. The price 

difference was approximately $42,852 to use JSG or one of its consultants to 

complete the tribe’s planning work product. 

OJP stated they no longer provide funding specifically for planning 

correctional facilities. However, funding is provided to tribes through the 

Comprehensive Tribal Justice Systems Strategic Planning Program to conduct 

broader, more comprehensive assessments of justice system needs. If BJA awards 

planning projects specific to tribal construction or renovation in the future, OJP 

stated it will structure the program to ensure that the most cost-effective approach 

to provide technical assistance to grantees is used. We found that BJA announced 

a competitive grant for FY 2016 Tribal Justice System Capacity Building Training 

and Technical Assistance Program to provide tribal jurisdictions with assistance to: 

(1) develop strategies to address crimes relating to substance abuse and other 

controlled substances, and (2) implement and enhance tribal justice systems. 

Although T&TA is no longer provided specific to correctional facilities, there is still a 

potential for the same issues to persist through this T&TA. Therefore, the concerns 

raised in this report are relevant to OJP’s ongoing activities. 

Other Management and Oversight Issues 

The goal for the TJSIP grant awarded to BJA’s T&TA provider, the NIJC, was 

to assist tribes in assessing their existing justice system continuum of services to 

determine the strategies that will be most effective, efficient, and sustainable in 

addressing the tribal correctional and/or correctional alternative needs.45 We found 

that the NIJC completed the following deliverables under the grant: (1) planning 

tool for project management, (2) online version of Planning New Institutions 

training, and (3) two publications. As of August 2015, the NIJC was waiting for BJA 

approval to implement these items. For the planning tool, the NIJC had been 

waiting for BJA approval since July 2013. We did find that the NIJC requested and 

was approved for a project extension to continue providing T&TA through 

December 31, 2015, and to process the publications through BJA’s approval 

process. These deliverables were created to assist TJSIP grantees through the 

45 U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, Audit of the Office of Justice 

Programs Grants Awarded to the National Indian Justice Center, Santa Rosa, California, Audit Report 

Number GR-90-15-006 (September 2015), examined whether costs claimed under the grants were 

allowable, supported, and in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, guidelines, and terms and 

conditions of the grants. 

48 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

 

planning process. However, due to BJA’s lengthy review process, over 2 years in 

one instance, approved resources that could be valuable to grantees to complete 

planning were not being utilized. 

According to OJP, not all work products are approved as they do not all meet 

OJP’s quality standards and investing further resources into the product may not be 

in the best interest of the government. However, the performance of this grantee 

was, in part, based on producing four work products for planning grantees to utilize 

during the planning process. In at least one instance, the grantee waited over 

2 years for feedback from OJP to produce a work product to meet its performance 

requirements. OJP should have been monitoring and assisting the grantee 

throughout product development to ensure that each product met quality standards 

and resources were not wasted on products OJP has deemed inadequate. Also, if 

work products are not approved the grantee cannot meet performance 

requirements, which seems like an ineffective use of grant funds. 

Based on our review of the planning grantees’ T&TA providers, BJA did not 

properly administer awards to the TJSIP T&TA grantees. Specifically, BJA did not 

ensure: (1) T&TA services were properly defined; (2) T&TA providers were free 

from COIs; (3) that funds were efficiently utilized to assist tribes with grant goals 

and objectives; and (4) ensure all work products submitted by grantees are 

reviewed and approved in a timely manner. 

Construction Grantee Training and Technical Assistance Provider 

Alpha Corp is a full-service consulting firm offering a wide array of program 

and construction management, project controls, and engineering services. It 

provides services to a broad spectrum of clients, including government agencies, 

municipalities, institutions, architectural and engineering firms, private enterprises 

and contractors. Alpha Corp’s team includes professional engineers, program and 

project managers, project controls experts, and other professionals. 

OJP awarded Alpha Corp $2,553,727 on September 30, 2009, through a task 

order against a GSA Federal Supply Schedule contract. The Federal Supply 

Schedule is managed by GSA and provides federal agencies with a simplified 

process for obtaining commercial supplies and services at prices associated with 

volume buying. Under the contract, Alpha Corp was tasked with assisting TJSIP 

grantees during the construction of detention facilities. BJA sought a 

comprehensive project management strategy to assist BJA with ensuring that 

grantees were implementing projects in the most cost effective and efficient 

manner and meeting proposed projects timelines. Assistance included working with 

TJSIP grant recipients to: (1) ensure that renovation and/or construction projects 

were completed according to the schedule timeline; (2) ensure that TJSIP grant 

recipients were utilizing efficient and cost-effective strategies to achieve project 

goals as proposed in the grant application; (3) conduct on-site visits and meetings 

with project directors and/or managers to ascertain the status and progress of 

renovation and construction projects; (4) assist BJA in ensuring that Recovery Act 

49 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

		

                                                            

TJSIP grantees are adhering to the Recovery Act Buy American requirement and the 

Recovery Act National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirement in renovating 

or constructing facilities through telephonic monitoring, on-site visits, and review of 

invoices; and (5) ensure that grantee projects are constructed or renovated in 

accordance with appropriate correctional facility standards. 

OJP Award Process 

We reviewed the award process for the competitively bid time and materials 

contract. We found that OJP did not prepare a Procurement Acquisition Plan as 

required by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). The Procurement Acquisition 

Plan is a comprehensive plan for fulfilling the agency need in a timely manner and 

at a reasonable cost. The purpose is to ensure that the government meets its 

needs in the most effective, economical, and timely manner. 

Invoice Analysis46 

To receive payment, Alpha Corp submitted to OJP monthly progress reports 

and invoices. The Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) would 

review the expenses and receipts submitted. Once approved by the COTR, the 

invoice would be approved by the contract specialist, who would verify that the 

rates billed matched the rates per the contract. We reviewed the invoices submitted 

by Alpha Corp. We found that OJP paid Alpha Corp for invoices that included 

charges for a position that was not part of the GSA Federal Supply Schedule or an 

approved position under the contract at the time of payment. For GSA Federal 

Supply Schedule contracts the FAR states: 

For administrative convenience, an ordering activity contracting officer 

may add items not on the GSA Federal Supply Schedule to an 

individual task or delivery order only if: (1) all applicable acquisition 

regulations pertaining to the purchase of the items not on the GSA 

Federal Supply Schedule have been followed; (2) the ordering activity 

contracting officer has determined the price for the items not on the 

GSA Federal Supply Schedule is fair and reasonable; (3) the items are 

clearly labeled on the order as items not on the Federal Supply 

Schedule; (4) all clauses applicable to items not on the GSA Federal 

Supply Schedule are included in the order. 

OJP paid $213,472 to Alpha Corp for a NEPA Coordinator position to help 

grantees fulfill the NEPA requirements of construction grants, related to site 

preparation. This position and hourly rate were not on the pricelist of services 

offered by Alpha Corp on the GSA Federal Supply Schedule. According to Alpha 

Corp, Alpha Corp submitted to BJA a proposal for a NEPA Coordinator position, 

46 On November 1, 2016, OJP provided the OIG with additional documentation submitted by 

Alpha Corp on May 13, 2016 to OJP to address the questioned costs we identified. OJP stated this 

information had not been provided to the OIG earlier due to an oversight by OJP. Our analysis of the 

additional documentation appears in Appendix 6. 

50 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

which included a list of duties and proposed fee amount for the associated work. 

BJA accepted Alpha Corp’s proposal and issued a modification to the contract to 

increase the funding for the NEPA Coordinator position. According to Alpha Corp, 

the NEPA Coordinator position was substantially equivalent to the primary role of 

the Quality Assurance Engineer/Manager position, which was an approved position 

on the GSA Federal Supply Schedule. Alpha Corp also stated it provided BJA a 

5.5 percent discount on the rate for the NEPA Coordinator position from the 

scheduled rate for the Quality Assurance Engineer/Manager. Despite Alpha Corp’s 

statements, BJA did not document that the NEPA Coordinator position was 

equivalent to the Quality Assurance Engineer/Manager position or that Alpha Corp 

provided BJA with a discount. Therefore, it was not apparent that OJP was in 

compliance with the requirements of the FAR. 

We also found one invoice submitted by Alpha Corp to OJP that included 

189 hours of work by the Project Coordinators. However, the timesheets submitted 

by Alpha Corp only supported 166 hours of work. Therefore, Alpha Corp overbilled 

and OJP overpaid Alpha Corp by 23 hours at $107 per hour for a total of $2,470, 

which we consider unallowable. 

Further, we found that OJP improperly paid Alpha Corp for per diem 

expenses incurred for travel. For time and materials contracts the FAR states that 

contractors can only be reimbursed for actual costs. Per diem rates for meals and 

incidentals are not based on actual costs. We found that Alpha Corp initially 

submitted invoices with actual travel expenses. However, starting in June 2010, 

Alpha Corp converted to the per diem method of reimbursement. This change in 

policy was not permissible under the contract. In total, we questioned $22,574 

paid to Alpha Corp for per diem reimbursement. 

Finally, as a time and materials contract, the FAR requires “appropriate 

government surveillance of contractor performance to give reasonable assurance 

that efficient methods and effective cost controls are being used.” However, 

despite the review performed by OJP prior to payment, we identified other 

deficiencies with OJP’s oversight of Alpha Corp’s compliance with federal and Alpha 

Corp travel policies as follows: 

	 Reimbursed per diem rates that were not consistent with the GSA per 

diem rates including using the end location, with higher per diem rates, to 

claim per diem on the last day of travel; and receiving per diem in 

addition to reimbursement for actual meal costs when providing lunches 

to tribal members while conducting on-site visits; 

	 Inconsistent/improper methods to allocate costs between personal time, 

TJSIP work, and non-TJSIP work, which included combining non-TJSIP 

work with the TJSIP work during a week and charging full hotel and per 

diem to the TJSIP; or extending work travel without working full days to 

remain in a locale over a weekend; 

51 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

                                                            

	 Stayed at non-grantee locations at higher per diem when performing site 

visits. This includes conducting 1-day site visits to a tribe while staying 

extra days for report preparation in cities more expensive than the tribe’s 

location, such as Las Vegas, Nevada, and Monterey, California, which 

ultimately incurred extra travel costs at increased per diem; 

	 Duplicate expenses; 

	 Unauthorized purchases for airfare upgrades; 

	 Unallowable charges for rental cars including upgrades, insurance, and 

prepaid fuel; 

	 Missing receipts for hotel, car rental, parking, or cell phones; and 

	 Support for travel costs that did not match costs claimed in invoices. 

As a result of these deficiencies, we identified $15,022 in unallowable costs 

and $19,273 in unsupported expenses, including $17,080 in invoice costs that 

lacked adequate supporting documentation, and $2,193 in other unsupported travel 

expenses.47 

Contract Performance 

Finally, we reviewed the performance of Alpha Corp. The Statement of Work 

describes Alpha Corp as filling a comprehensive project management function and 

specifies that the scope of work would include conducting proactive, ad-hoc on-site 

meetings with grantee project directors and providing progress information to BJA. 

As some of the objectives and tasks listed in the contract were not required, 

OJP clarified that Alpha Corp’s role was to apply its specialized knowledge and 

expertise in construction matters to assist grantees and BJA with construction 

project management and implementation matters, including maintaining cost 

effectiveness and efficiency. Grant management and implementation matters, and 

overall grant program and grantee oversight, were the responsibility of BJA. 

Under the T&TA contract, Alpha Corp was required to provide site visit 

reports to BJA after each visit to each facility location, which provided BJA a status 

of the project. According to Alpha Corp, it produced site visit reports for BJA that 

clearly noted the status of the project scope and any changes, budget, and 

schedule as well as Recovery Act requirements, actual project conditions, quality 

control, project control activities and any project risks. As part of the site visits, 

Alpha Corp also reviewed pay applications from contractors and contract 

47 Of the $15,022 in unallowable costs identified, $970 were also questioned as unallowable 

per diem payments since this was a time and materials contract that required actual cost 

reimbursement and for food expenses that were in addition to the per diem received. 

52 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

modifications. For the Navajo Nation, we reviewed all the Alpha Corp site visit 

reports provided by OJP, which are discussed in more detail previously in this 

report. While Alpha Corp submitted the site visit reports for Navajo Nation, 

ultimately, the facilities were built at least 250-percent larger than the stated need 

and cannot be fully staffed or operated by BIA. 

In our judgment, OJP did not properly manage the time and materials 

contract awarded to Alpha Corp to provide T&TA to the TJSIP grantees during the 

construction of the detention facilities, resulting in inadequate contract 

documentation, $40,065 unallowable costs, $19,273 in unsupported costs, and 

instances of non-compliance with contract terms and conditions. 

Based on our review of BJA’s T&TA providers, we recommend that OJP 

remedy the $842,879 in unallowable costs related to the COI issues, $40,065 in 

unallowable costs improperly incurred under the time and materials contract, and 

$19,273 in unsupported costs related to deficiencies with federal travel and Alpha 

Corp’s travel policies. We also recommend that OJP ensure T&TA services are well 

defined and COI policies are enforced. We recommend OJP implement policies that 

ensure T&TA providers do not contract separately to provide services to grantees 

or, in the rare circumstance a contract may be necessary, require prior OJP 

approval before T&TA providers contract separately with grantees or accept 

subawards from a grantee’s contractor. We recommend OJP analyze the costs and 

benefits of including master planning services as a service provided through T&TA. 

We recommend that OJP ensure that once TJSIP funds are awarded, all work 

products submitted by grantees are reviewed and approved in a timely manner. 

Finally, we recommend that OJP ensure compliance with the FAR when awarding 

contracts as well as throughout the execution of a contract, which includes properly 

documenting changes to the contract and reviewing invoices to ensure costs are 

allowable and supported. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that OJP: 

1.	 Coordinate with BIA to improve the design and certificate of occupancy 

processes as well as ensure appropriately sized facilities can be funded, 

completed, opened, and fully operational. This includes developing a formal 

agreement between OJP and BIA to document the roles and responsibilities 

of each agency, expectations of each agency, and areas of coordination. 

2.	 Review the circumstances of the facilities that have remained unopened or 

non-operational after the TJSIP grants were closed, determine if any grant 

funds should be repaid by the grantees due to the ineffective or inappropriate 

use of funds, and develop a corrective action plan to ensure that all 

unopened facilities or less than fully operational facilities become fully 

operational within a reasonable timeframe. 

53 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

3.	 Remedy $11,603,176 in unallowable costs related to the following: 

a.	 $10,720,232 awarded to the Nisqually Tribe to fund a correctional 

facility that was not funded or used in conformity with the statutory 

authority of the TJSIP, and that was inappropriately built with the 

intention of being a profit-generating facility. 

b. $106,277 paid by Tribe Number 10, $124,697 paid by Tribe Number 9, 

$59,326 paid by Tribe Number 8, $30,998 paid by Tribe Number 7, 

$136,494 paid by Tribe Number 11, $285,608 paid by Tribe 

Number 12, and $99,480 paid by Tribe Number 13 for services where 

a COI existed. 

c.	 $2,470 overpaid to the Project Coordinator position, $22,574 

unallowable per diem travel expenses, and $15,022 for unallowable 

travel costs. 

4.	 Enhance its due diligence process to ensure that sufficient comprehensive 

justice planning has been completed before construction or renovation, which 

includes assessing alternative treatment needs. This may include requiring 

and verifying additional information that is currently not required as part of 

the application materials - such as an assessment of bed space needs, BIA 

assessment of need and support, a complete construction or renovation plan, 

and inmate population statistics for more than a 6-month period - as well as 

assessing the overall impact of awards to ensure the grants will meet tribes’ 

needs and allow them to fully open, operate, and maintain the facilities. This 

also includes enhancing its process to deobligate funds more quickly if TJSIP 

grantees are not prepared for construction. 

5.	 Ensure any current or future facilities are constructed or renovated in a 

timely fashion, to a size that meets tribal needs that is also within the 

funding availability and intent of the TJSIP program. 

6.	 Develop a process to ensure planning grantees or the Tribal Justice Systems 

Strategic Planning Program grantees are provided the tools to implement 

recommendations that resulted from the planning process, which may 

include providing outreach and technical assistance. 

7.	 Ensure T&TA services are well defined and COI policies are enforced. 

8.	 Implement policies that ensure T&TA providers do not contract separately to 

provide services to grantees or, in the rare circumstance a contract may be 

necessary, require prior OJP approval before T&TA providers contract 

separately with grantees or accept subawards from a grantee’s contractor. 

9.	 Analyze the costs and benefits of including master planning services as a 

service provided through T&TA. 

54 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

10.	 Ensure that once TJSIP funds are awarded, all work products submitted by 

grantees are reviewed and approved in a timely manner. 

11.	 Remedy $19,273 in unsupported costs related to deficiencies with federal 

travel and Alpha Corp’s travel policies. 

12.	 Ensure compliance with the FAR when awarding contracts as well as 

throughout the execution of a contract, which includes properly documenting 

changes to the contract and reviewing invoices to ensure costs are allowable 

and supported. 

55 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

STATEMENT ON INTERNAL CONTROLS 

As required by the Government Auditing Standards, we tested, as 

appropriate, internal controls significant within the context of our audit objectives. 

A deficiency in an internal control exists when the design or operation of a control 

does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their 

assigned functions, to prevent or detect in a timely manner: (1) impairments to 

the effectiveness and efficiency of operations, (2) misstatements in financial or 

performance information, or (3) violations of laws and regulations. Our evaluation 

of the Office of Justice Programs’ (OJP) management and oversight over the Tribal 

Justice Infrastructure Program (TJSIP) was not made for the purpose of providing 

assurance on their internal control structures as a whole. OJP’s management is 

responsible for the establishment and maintenance of internal controls. 

As discussed in our report, OJP needs to improve its internal controls to 

ensure grant funds are used to build and open cost-effective facilities that comply 

with the statutory authority of the TJSIP, grantees are free from any conflicts of 

interest, and contract payments are allowable, supported, and incompliance with all 

contract terms and conditions. 

Because we are not expressing an opinion on the internal control structure of 

OJP as a whole, this statement is intended solely for the information and use of the 

auditee. This restriction is not intended to limit the distribution of this report, which 

is a matter of public record. 

56 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

 

STATEMENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH 

LAWS AND REGULATIONS 

As required by the Government Auditing Standards, we tested, as 

appropriate given our audit scope and objectives, selected transactions, records, 

procedures, and practices to obtain reasonable assurance that OJP management 

complied with federal laws and regulations for which noncompliance, in our 

judgment, could have a material effect on the results of our audit. Management at 

OJP is responsible for ensuring compliance with federal laws and regulations 

applicable to the Department of Justice (DOJ). In planning our audit, we identified 

the following laws and regulations that concerned the operations of the auditee and 

that were significant within the context of the audit objectives: 

 42 U.S.C. § 13709 (2012) 

 Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 16.6 

 FAR Subpart 8.4 

 FAR Part 7 

Our audit included examining, on a test basis, the compliance with the 

aforementioned laws and regulations by OJP, and whether non-compliance could 

have a material effect on operations at OJP. We did so by interviewing auditee 

personnel, assessing internal control procedures, and examining accounting records 

and performance reports of TJSIP grantees and the T&TA contractor. As noted in 

the Findings and Recommendations section of this report, we found that OJP funded 

a facility intended to generate profit at the Nisqually Tribe with the population 

housed at this facility subject to tribal jurisdiction as little as 2 percent of the 

overall population. The constructed facility was not in compliance with the statute 

that authorized the TJSIP, 42 U.S.C. § 13709, which provides grants to tribes for 

the construction of tribal justice centers to address violations of tribal civil and 

criminal laws. Additionally, we found instances where OJP did not ensure 

compliance with the FAR, which resulted in the improper payment of $59,338 to 

Alpha Corporation (Alpha Corp). 

57 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
                                                            

 

APPENDIX 1 

OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY 

Audit Objectives 

The objectives of our audit were to: (1) assess OJP’s management and 

oversight of the funding provided under the TJSIP (formerly known as the 

Correctional Facilities on Tribal Lands Program), including the contracting activities 

of grantees; and (2) determine the extent of OJP’s cooperation and coordination 

with the Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to ensure 

efficient and effective correctional services in Indian country.48 

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. 

Our audit generally covered, but was not limited to, fiscal years (FY) 2009 

through 2014, although our focus was primarily on the grants awarded prior to 

FY 2014, since grants that were more recently awarded have had little progress. 

To assess OJP’s oversight and management, we conducted interviews with 

officials at OJP, DOJ Office of Tribal Justice, and BIA. We reviewed OJP 

documentation related to the selection of TJSIP grantees. 

In this report we discuss audit work related to 19 TJSIP grantees, which 

resulted from 5 audits and 11 reviews completed for a judgmentally selected 

sample of TJSIP grantees and 3 tribes identified as having unopened TJSIP-funded 

correctional facilities through our review of OJP’s coordination with BIA.49. For the 

five audits, we interviewed personnel and 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 grants reviewed. This non-statistical sample design did not allow 

48 To reflect the expanded scope of the Correctional Facilities on Tribal Lands Program under 

the Tribal Law and Order Act, BJA changed the name of this program to the TJSIP. 

49 We completed reviews of 10 judgmentally selected TJSIP planning grantees and 1 TJSIP 

construction grantee. In this report, we discuss the results from 6 of the 10 TJSIP planning grantee 

reviews as well as 1 T&TA TJSIP grantee involved with these planning grants. Two of the six tribes 

conducted planning efforts with neighboring tribes; therefore we discuss three additional tribes related 

to these two tribes. A total of 10 TJSIP grantees related to our reviews of planning grantees and 

1 TJSIP construction grantee were ultimately discussed in this report. 

58 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

 

                                                            

projection of the test results to the universe from which the samples were selected. 

The criteria we audited against were contained in the OJP Financial Guide and the 

award documents. In addition, we evaluated the TJSIP grantees’: (1) grant 

financial management, including grant-related procedures in place for procurement, 

contractor monitoring, financial reports, and progress reports; (2) budget 

management and controls; (3) drawdowns; and (4) program performance. Below 

we briefly describe the results of five audit reports, which were published separately 

between December 2014 and November 2015. 

For the 10 reviews of planning grantees, we reviewed consultant 

expenditures to determine the total cost of each TJSIP grantees’ master plan.50 We 

also interviewed personnel involved with the TJSIP grants to evaluate performance. 

One review of the Nisqually tribe was conducted to assess the results of the 

$10,720,232 construction project. We reviewed expenditures, the master plan, 

inmate statistics, and interviewed personnel involved with the grant. 

As it relates to OJP’s contract with Alpha Corp to provide T&TA services to 

TJSIP grantees, we reviewed the contract award process, interviewed employees, 

analyzed invoices, and evaluated performance. We compared the invoices 

submitted by Alpha Corp to the supporting documentation to ensure the invoiced 

amounts were supported, expenses were allowable, and expenditures were in 

compliance with applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines. 

To determine the extent of OJP’s cooperation and coordination with BIA, we 

reviewed inmate population statistics and information from BIA related to the three 

unopened facilities identified. 

During our audit, we obtained information from: (1) OJP’s Grant 

Management System (GMS); (2) the accounting systems for the TJSIP grantees and 

the contractors specific to the management of DOJ funds during the audit period; 

(3) monthly detention operation reports from BIA; and (4) inmate statistic 

information from the Nisqually Tribe. 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. 

According to generally accepted government auditing standards, auditors 

should obtain and report the views of responsible officials of the audited entity 

concerning the findings, conclusions, and recommendations included in the audit 

report, as well as any planned corrective actions. The OIG provided Alpha Corp, 

the Nisqually Tribe, and Justice Solutions Group (JSG) each the opportunity to 

formally respond to our findings. Alpha Corp provided a formal response, which we 

incorporated into this final report. The Nisqually Tribe declined to provide a formal 

50 Of the 11 planning grants we reviewed, 1 award made to the Fort Peck Assiniboine and 

Sioux Tribes (Fort Peck) was reviewed as part of our grant audit, described below. We determined the 

total cost of the master plan for Fort Peck and incorporated it in our analysis. Therefore, we reviewed 

a total of 10 new TJSIP grantees during this audit. 

59 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

 

 

 

response. JSG did not provide formal response, but we obtained verbal comment 

from JSG related to the findings, conclusions, and recommendations, which we 

included in our audit report. 

TJSIP Grant Audit Results 

From December 2014 to November 2015, we issued five audit reports of 

individual TJSIP grantees – the Pueblo of Laguna, the Fort Peck Assiniboine and 

Sioux Tribes (Fort Peck), the Navajo Division of Public Safety (NDPS), the National 

Indian Justice Center (NIJC), and the Eight Northern Indian Pueblos Council 

(ENPIC). Summaries of these audits follow. 

Audit of the Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Assistance Correctional 

Systems and Correctional Alternatives on Tribal Lands Program Grants Awarded to 

Pueblo of Laguna, Laguna, New Mexico. Audit Report Number GR-60-15-003 

(December 2014) 

The audit covered two grants totaling $1,767,373, awarded to Pueblo of 

Laguna, of Laguna, New Mexico. The purpose of the OJP grants was to plan, 

construct, and renovate tribal justice facilities associated with the incarceration and 

rehabilitation of juvenile and adult offenders subject to tribal jurisdiction, as well as 

the enhancement of tribal justice system infrastructure. We found that Pueblo of 

Laguna did not comply with essential award conditions. Specifically, the Pueblo of 

Laguna: (1) was operating under an expired indirect cost rate, (2) was not 

conducting suspension and debarment checks for contractors paid with grant funds, 

(3) did not fully achieve one of the five objectives for one of its grants, and (4) did 

not comply with a special condition of one of its grants. Additionally, Pueblo of 

Laguna officials told the OIG that, as of June 2014, one of the two TJSIP grants for 

$1 million awarded in FY 2012 to fund a juvenile detention facility has not yet been 

used. The OIG made four recommendations to improve Pueblo of Laguna’s 

management of awards. Both OJP and Pueblo of Laguna agreed with the 

recommendations. 

Audit of the Office of Justice Programs Correctional Systems and Correctional 

Alternatives on Tribal Lands Program Grants Awarded to the Fort Peck Assiniboine 

and Sioux Tribes, Poplar, Montana. Audit Report Number GR-60-15-009 (May 

2015) 

The audit covered three grants totaling $12,942,550 awarded to Fort Peck in 

Poplar, Montana. The purpose of these OJP grants, which were awarded from 2008 

through 2010, was to plan and construct a tribal justice facility associated with the 

incarceration and rehabilitation of adult offenders subject to tribal jurisdiction. 

According to Fort Peck officials, the facility was substantially completed in January 

2014, but it was not opened until October 2014 due to delays with obtaining 

operations and maintenance funding from the Department of the Interior. As of 

December 2014, Fort Peck had drawn down all funds relating to the three grants 

that were the subject of this audit, but we found that the facility was only partially 

60 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

 

 

 

operational due to insufficient staffing. The OIG’s audit also found that Fort Peck 

did not comply with essential award conditions related to the use of funds, 

performance, and financial controls. Specifically, Fort Peck: (1) did not ensure 

grant funds were not paid to suspended or debarred contractors, (2) did not 

maintain documentation to support allocations of employee time among multiple 

grants, (3) did not fully achieve a grant objective to build a facility to promote 

alternative treatment programs, and (4) overdrew grant funds for one of the 

grants. The audit also questioned $246,983 in unallowable costs and an additional 

$109,737 in unsupported costs. The OIG made six recommendations to OJP to 

remedy the questioned costs and improve Fort Peck’s management of grant funds. 

OJP agreed with the recommendations. Fort Peck agreed with four of the 

recommendations and substantially disagreed with the two recommendations 

concerning questioned costs. As noted in the report’s appendix, after reviewing the 

draft report, Fort Peck also provided additional documentation sufficient to remedy 

$87,406 of the $109,737 in unsupported costs identified during the audit. 

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 Report Number GR-60-15-015 

(September 2015) 

The audit examined four grants totaling $70.5 million awarded to NDPS. The 

grants, which were awarded by OJP in 2008 and 2009, were intended to plan and 

construct tribal justice facilities for the incarceration and rehabilitation of adult 

offenders subject to tribal jurisdiction. The OIG audit identified $35,553,253 in 

questioned costs, as well as concerns relating to compliance with grant 

requirements. Most of the questioned costs were related to the construction of 

correctional facilities in Tuba City, Arizona, and Kayenta, Arizona, which were built 

with capacities that were at least 250-percent larger than needed, and at an excess 

cost of $32,034,623. We further found that OJP possessed the information 

necessary to identify the significant changes that expanded these projects’ scope 

but did not take sufficient action to prevent the questionable spending. 

Specifically, we found that in Tuba City, NDPS constructed a 132-bed 

correctional facility with a $38.6 million grant, even though its 2007 master plan 

called for a 48-bed correctional facility at a cost of $18.2 million, and even though 

the average monthly jail occupancy for Tuba City from 2008 through 2014 was 

between 14 and 22 inmates, with a high of 49 inmates. Similarly, we found that in 

Kayenta, NDPS built an 80-bed correctional facility and a police station with a 

$31.7 million grant, even though its 2007 master plan stated a need for a 32-bed 

correctional facility and law enforcement areas at a cost of $20 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. 

The report also identified other concerns with NDPS’s management of the 

four grants we audited including that NDPS: (1) did not check the suspension and 

debarment status of contractors paid with grant funds; (2) did not submit accurate 

61 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

financial reports for three of the four grants; (3) incurred $2,845,040 in 

unallowable costs; (4) incurred $656,921 in unsupported costs; (5) incurred 

$16,669 in unallocated matching costs; and (6) incurred $535,545 in funds to 

better use. The OIG made nine recommendations, of which OJP agreed with seven 

of the recommendations, disagreed with one recommendation, and partially 

disagreed with one recommendation. The Navajo Nation agreed with three of the 

recommendations, partially agreed with three of the recommendations, and 

disagreed with three of the recommendations. As noted in the report’s appendix, 

after reviewing the draft report, the Navajo Nation also provided additional 

documentation sufficient to remedy $194,189 of the $656,921 in unsupported costs 

identified during the audit. 

Audit of the Office of Justice Programs Grants Awarded to the National Indian 

Justice Center, Santa Rosa, California. Audit Report Number GR-90-15-006 

(September 2015) 

The audit examined four grants totaling $3,127,009 awarded to the NIJC in 

Santa Rosa, California. The purpose of these OJP grants was to fund NIJC’s design 

and delivery of legal education, research, and technical assistance programs that 

sought to improve the quality of life for Native communities and the administration 

of justice in Indian country. One of the four grants we audited was a $2,032,000 

grant awarded to the NIJC to provide T&TA to TJSIP grantees. As it relates to the 

TJSIP T&TA grant, we found the NIJC did not comply with several essential award 

conditions. Specifically, the OIG found that the NIJC: (1) did not adequately define 

policies and procedures to ensure effective control over grant funds, and (2) did not 

submit accurate financial reports. The audit also identified $722,864 in questioned 

costs, of which $415,315 related to the TJSIP T&TA grant, including, among other 

things, unsupported costs related to the use of consultants, unallowable indirect 

costs related to the building the NIJC owns for its operations, and unallowable costs 

resulting from the NIJC’s non-compliance with the grants’ special conditions. We 

made 10 recommendations, of which 6 recommendations at least in part related to 

the TJSIP T&TA grant, to OJP to remedy questioned costs and improve the NIJC’s 

management of awards. OJP agreed with all of the recommendations. The NIJC 

agreed with four of our recommendations, partially agreed with five, and disagreed 

with one. 

Audit of the Office of Justice Programs Correctional Systems and Correctional 

Alternatives on Tribal Lands Program Grant Awarded to the Eight Northern Indian 

Pueblos Council, Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico. Audit Report Number GR-60-16-001 

(November 2015) 

The audit examined one grant totaling $5,636,317 awarded to Eight Northern 

Indian Pueblos Council (ENIPC) in Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico, to construct an 

alternative substance abuse treatment facility for juveniles. We found ENIPC did 

not comply with several essential award conditions. Specifically, the OIG found that 

ENIPC: (1) incurred $20,659 in unallowable costs for items purchased after the 

grant end date and unbudgeted indirect costs charged to the grant, and 

62 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
(2) allocated $626,257 in unsupported costs to the grant match. We made two 

recommendations to OJP to remedy the questioned costs. OJP agreed with both 

recommendations. In its formal response to our draft report, the ENIPC neither 

agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations, but it identified several actions it 

will take to address the issues we identified. 

63 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

                                                            

 

APPENDIX 2
 

SCHEDULE OF DOLLAR-RELATED FINDINGS 

QUESTIONED COSTS51 AMOUNT PAGE 

Unallowable Costs 

Misused TJSIP Funds (Nisqually) 10,720,232 20-24
 

COI with Tribes 842,879 41-47
 

Alpha Corp Project Coordinator Overpayment 2,470 51 

Alpha Corp Per Diem Reimbursement 22,574 51 

Alpha Corp Travel Policy Deficiencies 15,022 51-52
 

Total Unallowable Costs $11,603,176
 

Unsupported Costs 

Alpha Corp Invoices Not Supported 17,080 51-52
 

Alpha Corp Travel Policy Deficiencies 2,193 51-52
 

Total Unsupported Costs $19,273
 

GROSS QUESTIONED COSTS $11,622,449 

Less Duplicate Questioned Costs52 970 51-52
 

NET QUESTIONED COSTS $11,621,479 

51 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. 

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

duplicate amounts, which include $970 in travel costs related to the deficiencies in Alpha Corp’s 

policies. 

64
 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

 

APPENDIX 3 

TJSIP RENOVATION AND CONSTRUCTION GRANTS 

AWARDED FROM FY 2007 THROUGH 2014 

2007 

1 Navajo Division of Public Safety – Renovation of Window Rock Adult 

Detention Facility 

2 Renovation of the Lac du Flambeau Safety Building 

3 Renovation Project for Sac and Fox Juvenile Detention Facility 

4 Akiachak Native Community Jail Renovation 

5 Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Renovation of Correctional Facility 

6 Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation Renovation of Women's 

Correctional Facilities 

7 Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana – Renovation and Maintenance of Existing 

Detention Facilities in Oberlin 

8 Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes – Renovation of the Flathead 

Tribal Jail 

2008 

9 Yankton Sioux Tribe – Renovation of Correctional Facility 

10 Colorado River Indian Tribes – Renovation of Existing Juvenile Holding and 

Detention Facility 

11 Renovation of Yavapai-Apache Nation's Detention Holding Facilities 

12 Pueblo of Acoma – Renovation of Detention Center 

13 Sault Ste Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians – Renovation of Juvenile 

Correctional Facility 

14 Navajo Division of Public Safety – Renovation of the Shiprock Adult 

Detention Facility 

15 Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Reservation – Renovation of 

Detention Center 

16 Chippewa Cree Tribe – Renovation of Detention Facilities 

17 Oglala Sioux Tribe – Renovation of Detention Facilities (Pine Ridge Indian 

Reservation) 

18 Navajo Division of Public Safety – Renovation of Adult Correctional Facility 

in Tuba City, Arizona 

19 Navajo Division of Public Safety – Renovation of Adult Correctional facility 

in Crownpoint, New Mexico 

Recovery Act 2009 

20 Fort Peck Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes – Construction of Fort Peck New Adult 

Detention Facilities 

21 Colorado River Indian Tribes – Construction of a New Juvenile Detention 

Facility 

65 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

22 Navajo Division of Public Safety – Construction of Kayenta Adult Detention 

Facility 

23 Yakama Nation – Construction of Yakama Nation Construction Detention 

Center 

24 Ramah Navajo Chapter – Construction of an Adult Correctional Facility 

25 Rosebud Sioux Tribe – Construction of an Adult Correctional Facility 

26 Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians – Construction of a Multi-purpose Tribal 

Justice Center on the Qualla Boundary 

27 Tule River Tribal Council – Construction of a Multi-purpose Tribal Justice 

Center 

28 Puyallup Tribe of Indians – Construction of a New Correctional Facility 

29 Native Village of Kwinhagak – Construction of Quinhagak Multi-purpose 

Tribal Justice Center 

30 Chippewa Cree Tribe – Construction of Chippewa Cree Multi-Purpose 

Justice Facility 

31 Navajo Division of Public Safety – Construction of a Multi-Purpose Justice 

Center in Tuba City 

32 Shoshone-Bannock Tribes – Construction of a Single Tribe Justice Center 

33 Pascua Yaqui Tribe – Construction of a Multi-Purpose Detention and 

Treatment Facility 

34 Nisqually Tribe – Construction of a Corrections Facility for Low Risk 

Offenders 

35 Yankton Sioux Tribe Fish & Wildlife – Renovation of Existing Adult and 

Juvenile Correctional Facility 

36 Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation – Renovation of Existing 

Correctional Facility 

37 Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes – Renovation and Expansion of 

Correction Facilities 

38 White Mountain Apache Tribe – Renovation of Existing Detention Facility 

39 Eight Northern Indians Pueblos Council – Construction of Residential 

Substance Abuse Treatment Facility 

2009 

40 Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Reservation – Construction of a 

Community Justice and Rehabilitation Center (Oyate Woazani Yuteca Tipi) 

41 Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians – Construction 

of Public Safety and Judicial Facility 

42 Colorado River Indian Tribes – Renovation and Expansion of Existing 

Detention Facility 

43 Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians – Renovation of Red Lake Tribal 

Detention Center 

44 Blackfeet Tribe – Renovation of White Buffalo Home Juvenile Correctional 

Center 

45 Standing Rock Sioux Tribe – Construction of Standing Rock Youth Services 

Center 

66 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

   

46 Navajo Division of Public Safety – Construction of New Jail Facility in 

Dilkon 

2010 

47 Bois Forte Band of Chippewa Indians – Renovation of Nett Lake Law 

Enforcement Facility 

48 Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation – Adult Correctional Facility 

Renovation 

49 Fort Belknap – Renovation of Detention Facility 

50 Northern Arapaho – Construction of a Multi-Purpose Juvenile Justice 

Center 

51 Pueblo of Laguna – Renovation of Detention Facility 

52 Shoshone Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley – Renovation of Juvenile Services 

Center 

53 Three Affiliated Tribes – Renovation of Justice Center 

54 Fort Peck Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes – Construction of Fort Peck New Adult 

Detention Facilities 

2011 

55 Hualapai Tribal Nation – Renovation of the Detention and Rehabilitation 

Center 

56 Grand Ronde – Renovation of Women's Transitional Living House 

57 Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin – Renovation of Alternative Facility 

58 Oglala Sioux Tribe – Construction of Alternative Facility (Juvenile) 

59 Makah Indian Tribe – Renovation of Detention Center 

60 Ute Indian Tribe – Construction of Multi-Purpose Justice Center 

61 Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma – Renovation of Detention Center 

62 Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley – Renovation of Alternative Facility 

63 Ramah Navajo Chapter – Construction of Detention Center 

2012 

64 Yurok Tribe – Construction of a Multi-Purpose Justice Center 

65 Pueblo of Laguna – Construction of a Multi-Purpose Justice Center 

66 Lummi Nation – Construction of Correctional Alternative Facility - 

Transitional House 

67 Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe – Construction of an Adult and Juvenile 

Detention Facility 

68 Central Council – Correctional Facility Upgrades - Kake, Hydaburg, Angoon 

69 Bay Mills Indian Community – Construction of a Multi-Purpose Justice 

Center 

70 Native Village of Kwinhagak – Construction of Quinhagak Multi-purpose 

Tribal Justice Center 

67 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
2013 

71 Muscogee (Creek) Nation – Construction of a Reintegration Transitional 

Living Center 

72 Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe – Construction of a Regional Justice and Public 

Safety Center 

2014 

73 Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin – Renovation of Detention Facility 

74 Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska - Renovation of Mary Hall 

75 Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians - Sault Tribe Law Enforcement 

Renovation Project 

76 Gila River - Correctional Facility Security Enhancements 

77 Colorado River Indian Tribes - Renovation & Expansion of Adult 

Correctional Facility 

78 The Tulalip Tribes of Washington - Corrections and Correctional 

Alternatives 

79 Kaw Nation - Kaw Nation Multi-purpose Justice Center 

80 Anvik Tribal Council - Tribal Public Safety Building Renovation 

Source: BJA 

68 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
                                                            

APPENDIX 4 

OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS’ RESPONSE 

TO THE DRAFT AUDIT REPORT53
 

U.S. Deparhnent of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Washington, D.C. 20531 

September 8, 2016 

MEMORANDUM TO: Michael E. Horowitz 

Inspector General 

United States Department of Justice 

THROUGH: Jason R. Malmstrom 

Assistant Inspector General for Audit 

Office of the Inspector General 

United States Department of Justice 

lsi 

FROM: Karol V. Mason 

Assistant Attorney General 

SUBJECT: Response to the Office of the Inspector General's Draft Audit 

Report, Audit of the Office of Justice Programs Tribal Justice 

Systems Infrastructure Program 

This memorandum provides a response to the Office of the Inspector General's (OIG) 

August 5, 2016, draft audit report entitled,Audit of the Office of Justice Programs Tribal Justice 

Systems Infrastructure Program. The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) appreciates the 

opporhmity to review and conunent on the draft report. 

Public safety on tribal lands is a top priority for !be U.S. Department of Justice (DOl) and OlP. 

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), within OJP, administers the Tribal Justice Systems 

Infrastructure Program (TJSIP), which is a complex program requiring extensive stakeholder 

engagement and coordination \Vith other Federal agencies and tribal governments. TJSIP became 

a stand-alone program with its own appropriation in Fiscal Year (FY) 1999. The program has 

evolved over the years in an effort to meet justice system challenges in Indian COlllltry and 

respond to significant legislative changes. An important element that needs to be considered 

when assessing the management and oversight of the TJSIP is the level of complexity and nature 

of the work being performed by tribal grantees llllder this fimding as well as the significant 

evolution of fimding over the years. 

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

69 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
OJP appreciates the OIG's thorough review of BJA's implementation and oversight of the TJSIP 

and as noted below has already implemented extensive changes to its admini~tration of the 

program. While OJP agrees in concept with the OIG's recommendation~, we re~pectfully 

disagree with many of the faet~ used to draw conclusions related to BJA's oversight and 

management of the program. Specifically, OJI' does not agree with the conelu on~ that were 

drawn related to inadequacies with oversight and monitoring of the program, ineffective 

coordination with BIA, the construction of excessively large facilities, and unnecessary planning 

activities. In addition, the OIG has included in its audit conclusions infonnation on three tribes 

(Tribes 1, 2, and 3) whose awards were made prior to FY 2009, and, in fact, are outside the scope 

of this audit $ initially depicted to OJI'. "111e 010 concluded thai the~e three fac ilities, which 

together cost nearly $22 million, remained lion-operational or partially operational for over a 

decade. It should be noted that during the period of the conduct of the audit, these three facilities 

opened and became operational. 

Tribal Justice Systems Inrrastructure I'rogrolm a nd the Enllution or Triba l G rolnt Funding 

Prior to FY 2007, iliA focused on supplementing existing construction projects. It was not until 

FY 2007 that BJA released a competitive solicitation focused on the planning and renovation of 

correct ional and conlIlllmity.based fac ilities. Sufficient flmding was not appropriated to BJA for 

new construction proje<:ts in FY 2007 and FY 2008. Although the solicitations encouraged the 

planning of community-based/correctional alternative options, the sol icitation was more focused 

on institutional corrections. Prior to 2009, BJA's appropriation under TJSIP provided for 

approximately $8 million to be avai lable to address justice infmstructure needs in Indian 

Country. 

On February 9, 2009, the President signed the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act 

(ARRA). BJA received and awarded $225 million to fund tribal justice system facility 

renovation and construction projects. ARRA provided a unique and rare opportunity for tribes to 

apply for funding to ptm;ue much needed new construction of tribal justice infra.~tructure 

projects. Of similar historic impact on tribal justice was the passage of the Tribal Law ruld Order 

Act (TLOA) on July 29, 2010, which provided legislative authorities and resources to tribal 

conununities across the United States to enhance their tribal justice systems. BegilUling with FY 

20 11 , BlA modified the TJSIP to provide more flexibility for creating, renovating, and/or 

expanding infrastructure to support alternatives to incarceration, transitional living facilities, 

regional faci lities, and mult ipurpose justice center facilities on tribal lands, including the 

previously excluded court and law enforcement space. 

I3eginning in FY 20 I 0, all awards under the TlSIP are made under the DOJ Coordinated Tribal 

Assistance Solicitation (CTAS). CTAS is designed to encoumge tribes to assess their public 

safety resources needs in a comprehensive way, taking into aCCQunt the state of the entire tribal 

justice system. Prior to the implementation of CT AS, each tribal-specific grant funding stream, 

including the TJSIP and the ARRA funding, utilized a separate competitive solicitation and 

application approval prQce~s. Through CTAS, onl y one application ~ accepted from each 

Federally-recognized tribe to encourage comprehensive planning and as~e~sment of needs. 

2 

70
 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
Each tribe can apply for funding undcr nine purpose areas where the funding addresses the needs 

of the tribe as outl ined in its tribal and community profil e_ 111e TJS IP is fundcd through CTAS 

PlUlJose Area Corrections and Correctional Alternatives. 

Given the limited flUlding leveb of recent a ppropriations to upport justice systems in Indian 

Country, it is no longer feasible to provide funding to support full-scale new construction 

programs for sccure correctional facilitics_ Additionally, B1A has lcarncd that currcnt lcvels of 

funding that BIA receives to operate, staff, and maintain tribal detention centers are not sufficient 

to meet the need for Indian Country. As a result of these fiscal constraints, B1A made a policy 

ec ~ion beginning in FY 2013 to no longer provide funding for the con~truction of new tribal 

justice facilities. B1A currently administers funding solely for the renovation of tribal justice 

facilities, including detention centers, mUltipurpose justice centers, treatment facilities, holding 

facilities, CQurts, police depru1ments, and transitional living facilitie s that serve both adult and 

juvenile populations. 

As with all its programs, OlP continuously improves upon its processes based on known risks, 

evidence based practices, and findings from its monitoring ruld oversight activities. A year-byyear account of key hange~ to the T1SI P, as well as the evolving phi losophy for how thcse 

programs should be administered is provided in Attachment I . 

BJA 's Oversigh t and Monitoring of the T J SIP 

The OIG concluded that inadequacies existed in IliA's oversight leading to grantee 

implementation ~sue . 011' re~pec fully disagree~ with thi~ conclu~ n al; B1A conducted 

extem;ive oversight and monitoring at every stage of the award proce~s_ Ol P implements a welldefined, risk·based oversight procC!;s_ At every stage, program and grant management ceis ion~ 

are made using the best infomlation available at the time. Known risks are identified and 

mitigation efforts are incorporated ~ ece~sary in each stage of the award process_ Any s~ cs 

identified through oversight and monitoring errore; result in corrective action~ and adju~tmenlS 

as necessitated by the events or circumstances at the time. While the OIG draft audit report 

provided a brief summar)' of the oversight., monitoring, and technical as~is ance provided to 

T1SIP grantees, it did not adequately characterize the level and depth of effort dedicated to these 

activities. OlP has provided additional infonnation on its oversight, monitoring, and technical 

assistance activities in Attachment 2. 

0,11' Coordina tion with RIA 

The OIG CQncluded that ineffective coordination between OlP and BrA has presented significant 

problems that have contributed to the construction of facilities that were excessive in size and/or 

not open or expericnced lengthy dclays before becoming opcrationaL In its responses to the 

OIG, OlP demonstrated its collaboration with the BrA through all phases of program 

implementation, including BIA review of applications, partnering in gmntee tmining, 

participation in routine calls and meetings with grantees and the training and technical assi~tance 

C1T A) providcTll, design approval, funding discussions and de ~ for Operation and 

Maintenance (O&M), and i~ suance of certificate~ of occupancy. A critical point not provided in 

the OIG report is that a significant timing gap exists between B1A's appropriation oftlmds that 

3 

71
 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
support construction and renovation and BrA's budget request and appropriation of foods to 

support the O&M of the facilities constructed using BJA funding. With this misalignment, 

grantee~ had to proceed with construction, without the certainty of obtaining BIA O&M funding 

at any level. 

Coordination with Bl A's Federal partners was, and still is today, a key component of the TlSIP. 

Once awards were made under ARRA in FY 2009 and FY 2010, BlA held quarterly meetings 

with the grantees, BIA, and ITA providers to ensure that ARRA projects would be completed in 

a timely and cost-effective mrulller. The quarterly calls provided rul opportunity for BlA to 

troubleshoot and follow up with partners to addre~s any delays or impediments to project 

completion. BJA used these calls as an opportooity to track the gnUltees' collaboration with BIA 

on design reviews and operational funding, as applicable. 

Recogn izing that the BIA funding was limited and the appropriation process was a lengthy one, 

shortly after the ARRA. awards were made, BlA began to strongly encourage grant recipients to 

submit their budget requests for O&.M funding to BIA as early in the process as pennitted umier 

BrA procedures. BJA, BrA, and the IT A providers offered assistance to the grantees with 

submitting operational budgets to Bl A for consideration. However, this process was hindered 

when the tribes were infonned that BlA would nol begin to consider Iheir funding requests until 

construction actually commenced. Nevertheless, iliA continued to track the grantees' 

development of their operational budgets and encouraged them to work with their BIA 

representatives to detennine needs. 

For projec~ that rely on BlA for O&M funding, all designs were ~ubmitted to BIA for its review 

and approval. The designs were submilled to J3 IA at the 40 percent, 70 percent, 99 percent, and 

100 percent design review level. BlA encouraged tribes that were not currently receiving BIA 

O&M funds bllt potentially would apply for the funds at a later date to also submit their designs 

to BIA for approval. BlA trackcd thc status of these reviews by BIA and provided follow up with 

the gran ee~ and 81A to request that submissions and approvals were completed in a timely 

manner. Nevertheless, BlA does not have authority over BIA's actions and accordingly could 

not ensure timely completion and approval by 81A. 

As the projects proceeded through construction, iliA encouraged the tribes to reach out to BlA 

prior to substantial completion of the construction to begin the potentially lengthy process for 

scheduling inspections. BlA continued to coordinate with BIA for expedited inspections when 

grantees indicated that there were issues with the scheduling. 

Purpose and Use orPlmming Grants 

Grantee Audit of the Nava(o Division of PubliC Safety. Window Rock. Arizona. The OIG 

concluded that inadequacies in BJA's due diligence in its management of the application process 

and oversight of awards led to unused planning products and premature fundin g of construction 

before adequate planning was completed. OlP has a fundamental disagreement on this issue as it 

believes that the planning carried out using grant funds was unquestionably necessary and 

premature funding of construction prior to planning did not occur. 'I11e 010 uses il~ findings 

from one grantee audit to support these conclusions. In the grantee audit of the Navajo Division 

4 

72
 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
of Public Safety, a dcpartment of the Navajo Nation, in Window Rock, Arizona, the OrG 

concludes that planning an~ provided to Navajo Nation were unnecessary, and thus 

unallowable under the TJSII' soli itatio ~. JP '~ po~i ti n emain~ that the planning carried out 

under these awards was valuable, necessary, and allowable. With these planning funds, the 

Navajo Nation was abl e 10 co truct facil itie~ Ihat addressed the specific net:ds of the local 

conununities rather than just construct the rudimentary facilities described by the prototypes. 

OlP does not agree with the contention of the orG that the Navajo Nation could have moved 

directly into the architectural and engineering phase of construction, based upon the 2007 Master 

Plan for Tuba City and Kayenta. The crux of our disagreement with the 010 may be a mailer of 

semantics, in that the planning conlpleted by the Navajo Nation with these grants expands upon 

the commonly understood meaning of "master plruming. " A Master Plan, also called a 

comprehensive justice plan, provides a long-range vision to address a community's justice 

system needs. Although the prototype designs for categories of facilities (large, medium, small) 

were completed in the 2007 Master plan, given the vast size of Navajo Nation along with the 

jurisdictional separation in its govermnent, additional planning for a specific locality or facilit y 

was necessary. TIle Master Plrul clearly states on page 1.1 that ''the Master Plan is the first step 

in discerning facility size, functioning, cost, and location for the entire Navajo Nation." The 

Plan goes on to state on page 2.2 that "TIle space programs shown in the followin g sections .. . are 

not intcnded to be the programs for any specific location, they are dcveloped as prototypical 

programs and space estimates for the large, medium, and small ludiciallPublic Safety faci liti e~ . 

As such, there arc llIany slllall adjustments that will need to occur as these programs become 

designs for building in each specific location." 

Regardl ess, the planning carried out by the Navajo Nation with rnA fun ds largely met the 

criteria established by the respecti ve solicitations in describing what a "master plan" hould 

include. In addition, at the time of the 2007 Master Plan, the Navaj o Nation could not have 

anticipatcd the availability of the Rccovery Act fundin g - a rare opportunity for tribes to increase 

their corrections infrastructure. Th is increase in funding allowed the Navajo Nation Department 

of Corrections to revisit their original space needs based on the 2005 analysis. 

re""'''>! the tribe as a high-level planning document - this 

Begaye, Navajo Nation Department of Justice 

, the Director of Navaj o Nation Department of Public Safety, 

Nation D~partment ofCorrections, __ 

:J:~:,6,, :~ ~:;:~ with OJP leadership. TIlis is significant ill that, rega co to characterize the Master Plan, it was never intended or used by the tribe as a 

facility-specific plrul. The Master Plan outlined four basic fac ility types: L.1rge (48 beds), 

Medium (32 beds), Small (16 beds), and the Navajo Correctional Rehabilitative Center (NCRC) 

(388 beds). ·lne NCRC was envisioned in the Master Plan to complement the local faciliti es by 

providing 388 long-tcnn correctional beds coupled with rehabilitation from established medical 

and rehabilitation faciliti es in the area. ·i11is planned 120,418 gross square feet facility was to be 

centrally located in the Navajo Nat ion and to be co-located with a Di trict Judicial/Public Safety 

Facil ity, ifpoosibl e. The Master Plan states on page 1. 7 that ' 'the first step to implementation of 

the Master Plan ~ facility design. In addition, page 1. 8 states ''the size of the detenlion 

5 

73
 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
componcnts in the District Facility are planncd based on thc assumption that thc NCRC is 

cstablishcd with 3&& beds" To date, no plans have been contemplated to establish the NCRC. 

The original 2007 Master Plan did nOI incorporate the restorative justice model into the facility 

design. OlP os i~ that hi ~ ~ a prudent w;e of grant fund~ because a restorative justice model is 

designed to break the cycle of criminal behavior. There is evidence that suggests rehabilitated 

offenders are es~ likcly to commit crimes and cause an additional burden for tax payers. As 

stated in the Master Plan, additional plmming would allow for each community to deteroline if 

the actual size, space allocations, and progr.runming plans detailed in the prototypes would 

actually meet their needs and could be built with the available resources. A significant portion of 

the square footage at both Tuba City and Kayenta supports programming activities including 

general education development (OED) classes, undergraduate programs, substance abuse 

programs, and parenting classes. Additionally. the space was designed to provide visitation areas 

(to keep inmates connected to their children and family), uaturallight (for promotion of sound 

physical and mental health). and areas to support recreational and cultural programming (such as 

supporting peacemaking sentences, to include sweat lodges). Also, as mentioned previously, the 

Tuba City facility provides space to conduct correctional training supporting the entire Navajo 

Nation. None of these restorative justice-related space needs were included in the original 

Master Plan. 

Awarding Planning Gran/.~ . Recognizing the critical rolc of planning in establishing justice 

facilities and/or correctional altemative programs that are appropriate for the intendcd population 

and supporti ve ofcuhural and traditional values, beginning in FY 2007 BJA offered planning 

grants to tribe~ that were intere~ted in comprehensive j usti ce sy~tem planning to as~ess their 

justice system needs, primarily related to constructing and renovating facilities associated with 

the incarceration and rehabilitation of j uvenile and adult justice-involved individuals subject to 

tribal jurisdiction or related to the development and implementation of correctional alternatives 

to meet the needs of the tribe 's population. 'll1is was done in an effort to ensure tribes had an 

opportunity 10 a.%es~ and implement sound local-level policies and practi ces that enable effective 

use of limited justice system resources prior to pursuing new construction or renovat ion projects. 

Planning grants provided tribes with an opportuni ty to explore all options before making a 

detennination to constmct or renovate a facility or implement alternative comnnmity corrections 

programs. After receiving input from tribal practitioners regarding planning needs, BJA 

broadened the scope of planning grants in FY 20 I a to allow tribes to do more specific planning 

related to pre-construction activities including schematic designs and architectural drawings. 

Justice system plalUling provides tribes with an opporttmity to fully assess their justice systems 

mid detennine if there are any needs or gaps to be addressed to ensure effective use of resources 

in serving justice-involved individuals. As an important part of this process, tribes are 

encouraged to develop a Strategic PlalUling Advisory Board representing key stakeholders and 

decision makers ill the tribe. Team members may include representatives from tribal governmcnt, 

riminal jLL~tiee systems, treatmentlhealth/mental health components, socia\lfamil y-rc1ated 

services and community groups, local service providers, businesses, community-based 

organizations, faith-based service providers, media, and individuals within the proposed projeet" s 

target population. Key components of comprehensive j ustice system planning include: 

6 

74
 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
I) collecting and examining baseline data to ensure that fisca l and progrrulmlatic resources will 

be used e ffecti vely and new or expanded faciliti es are only developed when warranted; 

2) exploring an array of tic e system building options; 3) applying community-based 

alternatives; and 4) developing sustainability plans for the opemtions, maintenance, and staffing 

of propo~ed justice ~y~ tem infra!;tructure options. 

It is important to highlight that completion of the planning roce~s docs not ne ce~saril y lead to 

facility construction or renovation. PlaMing grants could detennine that construction was not the 

tribe's best course of action. When plmUling processes resulted in a detenninat ion that facility 

construction or renovati on o~t appropriately served the needs of the tribe, it was never the 

intention of BJA to fund every construction project identified by a planning grrul!. 

It has always been OJP's practice and position that plaMing and construct ion activities often 

overlap; thus, OlP does not draw a strict distinction between the two phases for fll1ldin g 

purposes. It is also OJP's practice that conccptual and schematic designs can, in fact., be funded 

during the planning process. As part of the planning process, architectural representatives may be 

invited to participate in early pre-architectural plulming phases to answer questions, produce 

sketches, and provide guidance to the planning project team. These services help to guide the 

plmUling in tenns of site selection, space needs, space plruming, conceptual schematic designs, 

ruld cost estimates. 'Ibis infonnation is also helpful in guiding the required National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews and is a rc qui it e to the development of the final 

design and construction documents. 

hange.~ to BJA '.~ planning award proce.u. Given the immediate ee d.~ of a number ft be~ 

with tribal justice it e~ in disrepair or out of compliance with BIA standards, BJA 

discontinued planning grants in FY 2014 to allow for more resources to support renovation 

projects. Instead of providing flmding through TJSIP for facility plaMing purposes, tribes were 

cncouraged to conduct a broader, more comprehensive asses~ nt of their justice system nceds 

and resources through the eTAS Purpose Area, Comprehensive Tribal Justice Systems StrategiC 

Planning Program, funding opportunity. 111is Purpose Area was developed in FY 2012 to assist 

tribe~ in developing a comprehem;ive strate gic pl an to identify the priority needs facing the 

tribe's j ustice system and outline a detailed, strength-based strategy, which could include law 

enforcement, courts, commlUlity corrections, altematives to incarceration, tribal jails 

programming, crime victims' rights and services, programming to seJ\!e juvenile justi ce needs 

from prevention through reentry, and commll1lity resources to support alternatives to 

incarceration and reentry programming. 11lis program allows the tribes to look at their systems 

as a whole and identify specific areas of flUlding needs. 

BJA rcspccts tribal ~over gnt y and realizes that tribes may want to ~clect consultants that have 

an lUiderstanding of their culture and community needs. Therefore, BJA stmctured the planning 

grant category so that tribes would receive funding directly to hire a consultant to assist their 

strategic planning team with completing tasks associatcd with thc comprchcnsive tratcgic 

plaIllIing process. The overall goal is to provide tribes with the fl exibility to exercise local 

control over their j ustice assessment process_ If BJA awards planning projects specific to tribal 

constructionlrenovation in the future, it will structure the program to ensure that the most costeffective approach to provide teclulical assistance to grantees is used. 

7 

75
 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
Facility Size D~d on Tlibal N~d 

011' continues to disagree with the OIO's overly broad conclusion that facilities funded through 

TJSIP wer.:: built in excess of the tribes' needs_ 'Ibis finding is primarily based on the gr,mtee 

audit of the Navajo Division ofl'ublic Safety, Window Rock, Arizona - and it remains OJ "~ 

position that the conclusions made by the 010 relating to this grant award are flawed. OJP has 

been working with the 0[0 since the issuance of the audit report, Audit of the Office of Justice 

Programs. Correctional Systems and Correctional Alternatives on Tribal Lands Program, 

Grants Awarded to the Navajo Division cfPflblic Safety . Window Rock, Arizona. on September 

29, 2015, to reach a resolution on the O[G '~ fi ndings and related recommendations. In its latest 

correspondence to the 010, dated August 23, 2016, OJP provided a further response to the 

reCOlllInend1tions, which remain unresolved. After a careful review, including the exmnination 

of 010 analysis and responses, as well as the significant amount of documentation provided by 

I3JA ruJd the Navajo Nation, OJP sent a leadership team, consisting of the Deputy Assistant 

Attorney Gencral; Deputy Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance (I3JA); mid Assistant Attorney 

General staff to the Navajo Nation to assess the situation first hand. Staff traveled to the Navajo 

Nation to tour the Tuba City and Kayenta facilities, as well as to meet with tribal leadership, 

which included Russell Begaye, President, Navajo Nation; Allen Sloan, Acting Chief Justice, 

Navajo Nation: Lorenzo Bates, Speaker, Navajo Nation Council; as well as members of the 

Navaj o Nation tribal council. 

Based on observations made during the visit and the infonnation obtained from meetings with 

tribal lcadership, OJP continues to respectfully disagree with the OiG's assertion that the 

facilities built provide no apparent benefit to the Navajo Nation or publie_ OJP continues to 

conclude that BJA's decision to fund the Tuba City and Kayenta fac ilities was justified, mid that 

the size of the facilities was justified given the extraordinary need of the Navajo Nation for jail 

space. 

'lb e Navajo Nation is the country's higgest and moot populous Indian reservation with almost 

180,000 individuals residing on the reservation. It extends into Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico 

and covers 27,000 square miles_ At the time of the Navajo Nat ion's application for ARRA 

fundin g to bui ld the faciliti es in Tuba City and Kayenta, the Navajo Nation Department of 

Corrections was only operating approximately 59 beds across the entire Navajo Nation. Prior to 

the 1992 Consent ])e-eree, the fi ve open detention facilitie s across the Navajo Nation had a total 

of 250 beds. The need for jail bed space is staggering when compared to criminal activity on the 

Navajo Nation. For years, there has been virtually no punishment when the laws of the Navajo 

Nation ha\'e been broken. Serious offenders have historically been released and retumed to their 

communities, which has promoted a culture of lear ruJd intimidation. The jail space limitations 

have impacted the decisions made by the public safety officers, proseclttors, and judges for over 

the last two eca e~ _ 

In 2005, an assessment completed by the Navajo Nation Department of Corrections indicated the 

nced for the Navajo Nation to plan for approximately 900 to 1,000 beds to be constmcted, with 

plans for these to be operational over the proceeding five to tcn years. It was further 

recommended that these beds be distributed in fi ve facilities each containing 150 adult beds and 

two facilities each containing 100 adult beds. The 2005 as~ess nt was infonned using data on 

8 

76
 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
districts' calls for services, number of individuals booked, and alUmal court statistics. In 2007, a 

political dc n wa:; madc to reduce the bed le rccommcndation5 as part ofthe 2007 Mastcr 

Plan based on lack of potential fWlding in the or ~eeable future. However, the original data 

analysis to support the larger faciliti es is still valid today. In 2014, the total all ~ for service in 

Tuba City totaled 31,675, including 590 part one ff . In Kayenta, the total all ~ for ~ervice 

was 30,294 including 327 Part 1 offenses. In 2015, the caseload in the Tuba City District Court 

for criminal alld e~ti c violcnce tf ~e~ was 2,6 17. In Kayenta, the caseload for thc same 

offenses was 1,565. The total bookings in 2015 at Tuba City was 5,550 and 2,958 at Kayenta!. 

The Navajo Nation maintains, and OJP agrees, that the average daily imnate count cmmot be 

used to calculate the bed space need. As mentioned above, due to the 1992 consent decree 

severely limiting the capacity to hOllSe offenders, the current inmate population numbers are not 

accurate representat iollS of the true need for bed space in the Navajo Nation. The National 

Institute of CorrectiollS refers to jail plmming as ' 'the science and art of predicting the future.',2 

Jail forecasting relies on tracking a nmnber of variables including COllllty population, 

incarceration rates, crime, arrests, jail admissions, average length of stay, and average daily 

population. 

The Navajo Nation is currently taking steps to ssc~s its entire justice system and practices of 

law enforcement, prosecutors, mid judges to ensure violent offenders are incarcerated, 

conununities are safer, and j ustice is secured for victims by modifying its codes to include 

incarceration as a sentence for more punishable offenses, as appropriate. Whilc mccting with 

OlP leadership, Navajo Nation President Begaye cOlllmitted to the crcation of a task force to 

address, in a holistic approach, these justice system-wide issues and focus on the remaining 

limitations preventing the faciliti es from becoming full y operational. In December 2014, Navajo 

Nation adopted an Amendment to Title 17 of its Tribal Council Codc in which the following 

changcs wcrc madc: incarceration was added as a punishment for 44 offenses; 25 ncw offenscs 

were added, which include incarceration as a punishment; and 40 offenses were amended to 

include mandatory sentences. However, these changes take time to establish and implem.c:nL 

The tribe is still currently operating under the 1992 consent decree, however is acti vely working 

with the Navajo Nation 's Attorney General to modify the consent decree. 

OJP maintains that the term ''fully operational" is defined as having the number of staff needed 

to operate at full capacity. At the time of our visit, the Tuba City facility was hOllSing 32 inmates. 

Currently, there are 27 personnel on staff with one pending and 28 additional positiollS 

authorized for hiring. A significfUlt amomlt of space at Tuba City supports the Navajo NatiOll's 

correctional officer training. Since the opening of the Tuba City facility, the space has hecnused 

by officers across the Navajo Nation to meet their 40-hour a year training requirements. Rather 

than having to find and pay for space to conduct these routine trainin ~, the Navajo Nation is 

able to utilize this space at both Tuba City and Kayenta. 

I Data provided from the Navajo Nation Division of Public SMety DepArtment of Corrections 201 5 Annllill Report 

and the Judicial Branch of the Navajo Nation Fiscal Year 2015 Annual Report 

j .Jail Capacity Planning Grlick, A Sysums Approach, Nalionallnstirute of Corrections, November 2009 

9 

77
 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
Kayenta is still awaiting the certificate of occupancy from the Bureau ofIndian Affairs (BIA) 

duc to thc requircmcnt to build a watcr tank on prcmiscs_ The installation of the tank has 

commenced and Navajo Nation anticipates completion in September 20 16. 011' observed work 

being carried out to instal l the water tank At this time, Kayenta has 1.5 persomlel employed with 

four pending and an additional 28 positions authorized to hire. 'Ibrough discussions with tribal 

leadership, we remain confident that the Navajo Nation is committed to finding the resources to 

fund the remaining positions and have taken ~ignificant stcps to cnhance their rccruitmcnt and 

hiring capabilities. 

011' bt:lieves that, given the ongoing dispute between 011' and the OIG, all references to the 

Navajo Nation audit report should be removed from this report in its entirety. This includes the 

OIG's conclusions ruld reference to constmction of excessively large facilities that were not 

aligned with tribes' documented needs. Otherwise, OJP requests that the TJSIP audit report not 

be made available to the public until after the fina l resolution of this disagreement. 

The draft audit report contains 12 recommendations ruld $11,621,479) in net questioned costs. 

For ease of review, these recommendations are sununarized below and followed by OJP 's 

response. 

1. Coordinate with BlA to impro\"e the design and eertiflc-dte of occupancy processes, 

as well as ensure a ppropriately sized facilities c-.... n be funded , completed, opened, 

and fully opcrntional, This includcs dcveloping a fonnal agreemcnt bern'ccn OJP 

and RIA to document the roles and resp"nsihilities of each a gency, ex pectations of 

each agency, and areas of coordination. 

111e Office of Justice Programs agrees with this recommendation. While OJP and the 

BIA have coordinated their efforts in a more infonnal manner on multiple progrruns, OJP 

agrees that a fonnal agreement will be useful to establish and document communication 

protocols, the roles and responsibilities of each agency, and llTeas of coordination. Such a 

fonllal agreement would need to take into consideration that: I) BIA camlOt gUllTantee 

that the fWlding necessary to operate, staff, and maintain completcd facilities in Indian 

country will be madc availablc; and 2) BJA has no authority over BIA, and as such, 

CUlUlot enforce agreement tenlls relating to actions to be taken by DIA andlor the 

timelincss of these actions. It is also important to note, that while OJP can propose the 

fomlal agreement to BIA we cannot be as~ ured that BIA witl sign and execute the 

agreement. 'Iberefore, it is OJP's position that this recommendation should not remain 

open irOJP is unablc to obtain BIA 's agreemcnt to the MOU. 

'Ibe Office of Justice Programs considers thi ~ recommcndation resolved and reque ~ 

written acceptance of this action from your office. 

) Some COSl.'; were questioned for more than One reason. Net questioned COOl.'; exclude the duplicate AmounL~ 

10 

78
 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
2, Review the cil'culIlstances of the facilities that have l't"Inained unopened 01' non4 

operational after the TJSI P grants were closed, determine if any gmnt fund s shou.ld 

be rel»'id by the grantees due to the ineffective 01' inappl'Opriate usc of flUId s, and 

develop a corrective action plan to ensure that all unopened facilities or less than 

fully oper.lfional facilities become fully oper.lfional within a n"oIsona ble timefrolme. 

'111e Office of Justice Program~ agre ~ with thi~ reeommendation_ BJA has reviewed, and 

continues to monitor, the circumstances surrounding the facilities that have remained 

unopened or non-operational after the TJSIP grants were closed by OJP. Bi-weekly 

meelings continue to be held with representati ves from OJP 's Office of the A~s ~ta t 

Attorney General, BJA, the Oflice of the Associate Attorney General, and DOl's Office of 

Tribal Justice, to address issues related to tribal facilities that are not yet open due to 

constmction delays and/or post-constmction issues. As a result of these meet ings, 

coordination and follow up with BIA and the tribes, the facilit ies for three of the tribes 

described in the OIG report are now (.'open and operational: Tribe Number 1 (.'opened in May 

2016, Tribe Number 2 opened in June 2015, and Tribe Number 3 opened in September 

2015. Further, oo1's TlSIP project team continues to work with the Navajo Nation to 

open and fully operalionalizc Ihe facilities funded Ihrough ARRA 

Additionally, the Office ofManagemcnt and Budget (OMB) Unifonn Guidance, at 2 CFR 

§ 200_329, Reporting on Real Property, eonlains requirements for grantees to report on the 

status of real property in which the Federal govenUllent retains an interest. As a result of 

this requirement, a policy memorandum, dated May 6, 2016, was implemented by OJP as 

a new tool to monitor renovation and CQn~truction projects after cto~eoul (~ee AUachmenl 

3)_ Further, all TJSIP grants awarded during the FY 2016 cycle, as well as future grants 

under this program, will include the followin g special condition: (~ee below and 

Attachment 4). 

Real I'mperty Repnrting 

Recipient unden;lan& and agree~ to report on the ~e and ~tatu~ of real property 

acquired, constmcted, or improved under this award, throughout the useful life of 

the property or lUltil the federa l interest in the property ceases, whichever is 

shorter. Recipient further agrees to provide the required use and status reports on 

federal Standard Fonn 429, or by other reasonable method as directed by OJP, in 

confomlance with 2 C.F.R. § 200.329. 

Accordingly, the Office of Justice Programs requests closure of this recommend.1tion. 

11 

79
 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
3. Remtdy $11,603,176 in unaUowable ~os s related to the foUo",-ing: 

a. $10,720,232 awanloo to the Nisqually Tribe to fund a correctional facility that 

was not fund ed or used in conformity with the stalutory authority of the TJSIP, 

and that was inappropriately built ","ith the intention of being a profit-genenlting 

fadlity. 

The Office of Justice Programs agrees with this subpart of the reconunendatiQll, 

Accordingly, OJP will work with the Nisqually Tribe to assess whether it is using the 

facility in accordance with the tenl ~ of the agreement and provide further guidance to 

the Nisqually Tribe. OJP will detennine whether the 60 percent usage of the facility 

- jail occupancy and other criminal justice purposes (such as programming related to 

educational, substance-abuse, and parenting) is for individuals subject to tribal 

jurisdictiQll, as required by statute. In addition, OlP will assess whether any for-profit 

usage beyond the 40 percent is occurring. The Office of Justice Programs considers 

this subpart of the recommendation resolved and requests written acceptance of this 

action from your office. 

b. $106,277 paid by Tribe Number 10, $124,697 paid by Tribe Number 9, $59,326 

paid by Tribe Number S. $30,998 paid by Tribe Nwnbcl' 7, $136,494 paid by 

Tribe Number 11, S285,608 paid by Tribe Number 12, and S99,480 paid by 

Tribe Number 13 for services ",-hcl'C a COl existed. 

The Office of Ju~tice Progrdms agrees with this subpart of the recommendation. OlP 

will examine each case carefully, focusing on the gmnt requiremcn~ and connict of 

interest (COl) rulcs that apply to each party involvcd (c.g., CQ u1tant , employees, 

and grantees). Where OJP ethics officials determine an apparent or actual COl 

existcd, OJ P wil1 dctenlline whcther thc is~ c arose out of the grants to caeh tribe, or 

the cooperative agreement to the T IA provider, and wil1 coordinate an appropriate 

response for each individual situatioll. The Office of Justice Programs considers this 

subpart of the recommendation resolved and requests written acceptance of this 

action from your office. 

c. $2,470 oH'rpaid to the Project Coordinator position, S22,574 unallowable per 

diem trn"el ex penses, and S15,022 for lUlaliowa ble trnwl costs. 

The Office of Justice Programs agrees with this subpart of the recommendatiQll. OlP 

will coordinate with the vendor to remedy the $40,066 in questioned costs, related to 

the $2,470 overpayment to the Project Coordinator position, the $22,574 in 

unal10wable per dicm travel cxpe se~ , and thc $15,022 in unal10wable travel costs. If 

any of these costs are detennined to be wlallowable (or arc not adequately supported), 

OJP will request that thc vcndor return the funds to the DOJ. Cine o m cc of Justice 

Programs considers thi~ subpart of the recommendation re~olved and requesu; written 

acceptance of this action from your omec. 

12 

80
 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
4. Enhance its due diligence process to ensUl'E' that sufficient compl'thensive justice 

planning has bL't'n completed before constructiun or renovation, which i.ncludes 

assessing alternativc treatmcnt nttd s. This may include requiring and ' -elifying 

additional informalion that is currently not required as part of the application 

materiab - such as an a.~se$.'1ment of bed s pace need$, 81A assessment of need and 

support. a complete constl'tlction or l'E'novation plan, and imlla te population 

statistks fllr more than a 6-mllllth period - as well as assessin g the o,-emll impact of 

a'n'ards to ensure the grants will meet tribes' needs and allow them to fully open, 

operate, and maintain the facUiti es. This also includes enhancing its process to 

deobligate funds mlll"e quickly ifT,JSlI' gnmtees are not prepared for construction. 

TIle Office of Justice Programs agrees with this recommendat ion. As detailed above, 

since FY 2010, OJP has made significant TJSIP grant program changes including the 

shifi from fWlding new construction to funding only renovation projects, as well as the 

change to support the construction and renovation of different types of multi-purpose 

facilities that provide services across the criminal justice system in lieu of solely 

supporting detention facilities. 

Beginning in FY 2014, BJA stopped making awards Wider the TJSIP for the construction 

of new tribal facilities. Currently, TJSIP funds are only available for fCnovation and/or 

expa ~io n of existing facilities_ If, in the fut ure, BJA reinstates a construction component 

of the TJSIP, these awards will be governed by the TJSIP policy issued by the DJA 

Director on May 20, 2016 (see Attachment 5)_ This policy requires that no new 

construction projects for new tribal justice facilities will be funded until such time that 

the rollowing two criteria can be me t: 1) evidence orsumcient runding to complete 

construction, incl uding appropriate reserves to fund the cost of any post-construction 

plIDch-list costs to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy; and 2) evidence of the tribe's 

ability to operate, staff and maintain the facility_ For any TJSI P soli citation that includes 

a new constructi on category, BJA will require that applicants submit relevant planning 

documents that substantiate the need and proposed size of the facility, as a separate 

attachment to their application. 

As it relates to renovation or expansion projects, BJA already has requirements in place 

to ensure comprehensive planning has been completed prior to application submission. 

Applicants are required to describe their renovation plan that explores correctional 

building options to ensure a cost-effective design. 

Beginning in FY 2016, BJA required applicants seeking fWlds for renovation or 

expansion of detention racilities ror hou~i g sentenced offenders to complete a daily case 

record for all target population cases entering the criminal ju~ti ce system over a G-month 

period. Additionally, BJA requests a swmnary of program spaces in the proposed facility 

and the average daily popul ation over a 6-month period_ BlA will conduct an analysis to 

identify a period of time beyond six months that may provide a more robust 

representation of inmate population statistics and need_ 

13 

81
 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
BJA will continue to review each application to ensure that applicants describe any 

additional resources that may be leveraged to complete a renovation or ex i~ting 

construction project. This will ensure that appl canl~ have already identified resourees to 

complete the renovation or CQn~truction (when applicable). Additionall y, BJA will 

continue to require that applicant~ document what re~ource s will u~ed to statT, operate, 

and maintain the fac ility once the project is complete. 

Another requirement of application submission is that applicants should provide the 

status of any requests to BlA regarding the staffing, maintenance, and operation of the 

facilities be ing planned, or renovated, if they are requesting BIA ;u;si~tance to meet 

facility operations and maintenance needs. If an applicant is not requesting or relying on 

BIA resources, the applicant must submit, by authorizing resolution or other satisfactory 

evidence of legal authority, a commitment to fund future staffing, maintenance, and 

operation of the fac ilities renovated in lieu of BIA funding support leners, if the tribe 

chooses to be rcsponsible for this ongoing cost. 

BJA is in the process of drafting standard operating procedures for TJSIP. This document 

will memorialize existing opemting proccdures as well as address any areas of ambiguity 

as it relates to administration ofTJSIP. Procedures will include a protocol for 

deobligation of funds if the grantee is not able to implement a project within a reasonable 

period of time duc to lack of reso ce~ or other circumstances that the grantee is unable to 

resolve within a reasonablc timcframc. Fulure solicitations will require applicants to 

certify in a tribal resolution or other legal authority and provide evidence to demonstrate 

that they have all existing resouree~ in place to compld.e the propo~ed renovation 

projccts. 

·Ine Office of Justice Programs considers thi~ recommendation resolved and reque ~ 

written acceptance of this action from your oflice. 

5. Ensure llny cu rrent or future fadlitictlllre constructed or renovated in a timely 

fa shion, to a size that metts tribal nct'ds that is also within the funding availa bility 

a nd intent uf t he T ,' SII' progr olm. 

TIle Office of Justice Programs agrees with this recommendation. Begimling in FY 2014, 

as detailed in the response to Recommendation 4, BJA is no longer awarding grants for 

new construction projects. Currently, TJSIP funds are only available for renovation 

and/or expa.nsion of existing facilities. If BJA, in the future, reinstatcs a construction 

program, it will be governed by the TJSIP policy issued by the BJA Director in May 

2016. As it relates to applicants requesting funding to renovate and/or eX"pand existing 

facilities, genemlly they already have a facil ity of a size that meets their needs. In 

n~tance s where applicants ue~t f Wld~ to expand a fac ility, BJA will continue to ensure 

that the applicant has documented the need for the expansion and planned for any new 

staff required as a result of the expansion. 

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

14 

82
 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
6, lop a process to ensUl'e planning grantees or the Tribal Justice Systems 

Stmtegic Planning Program gr .... dees are pnn'ided the tools to implement 

rc.:ommendations that resulted frolll the planning process, which lIlay include 

providing outreach and technical assistance, 

The Office of Justice Programs agrees with this recommendation. OJP agrees that, if the 

TJSiP planning grants lITe ever reinstated, grantees should receive tmining and tcchnieal 

assistance to identify their implementatiQll needs, including gtlidance in identifying 

potential fundin g sources for their strategy, 

Currently, OJP encourages tribes to conduct a broader, more comprehensive assessment 

of their justice system needs and resources through the CT AS Purpose Area (PA) 2, 

Comprehensive Triba/Justice Systems Strategic Planning Program (CTJSS P). The 

CTJSPP was developed to assist tribes in developing a comprehensive strategic plan to 

identify the priority needs facing the tribe's justice system and to outline a detailed, 

strength-based strategy, which could include law enforcement, courts, community 

corrections, altematives to incarceration, tribal jails progrrullllling, crime victims' rights 

and services, programming to serve juvenile j ustice needs from prevention through 

reentry, and community resources to support altematives to incarceration and reentry 

programming. 'Ibis program allows the tribes to look at their systems as a whole, and 

identify specific areas of funding needs. 

'Inc CTJSSP gr,mtees are guided through a phased tribal justice system planning process 

by the T I"A provider team to ure development and ubmi ~s n of their jw;tice system 

plan that identifies the tribes' priorities. The CTJSSP grantees arc given the resources to 

develop a data-infonncd, comprehensive justice system stratcgic plan through the 

3-phase planning process. These grantees, with the guidance and assistance of the TT A 

pllTtners, conduct a needs asseSSlllents to gain a comprehensive understanding of the 

needs and re~ources os~ all epart nL~ wilhin their justi ce sy~tem, and even across 

jurisdictions. 

The strategic plan created through CTlSSP will identify the priority needs facing the 

tribe's justice system and outline a detailed, tren th~based strategy, including identifying 

areas that require flUlding. CTJSSP grantees who submit an approved strategic plan 

receive priority consideration for CT AS fundin g to implement the plan in whole or part in 

future fiscal years upon submission of rul application. AWlITds are contingent upon the 

availability of flUIds. 

l' 

83
 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
If BJA awards funds for planning projects specific to tribal construction in the future, it 

will review the structure of the CTJSSP a~ a guidc for impl ementing thc TJSIP planning_ 

Additionally, BJA wi ll ure that the grantee~ ' plans addre~s the costs for constructing 

or rcnovating a facility, and/or implementing alternative community corrections 

program . Further, the 'ITA providen; will work with the grdntee~ to identify potential 

sources offunding for both the construction/renovation/implementation of the project as 

well as ongoing operations_ 

The Office of Justice Programs requests closure of this recommendation. 

7. Ensnre T & T A scrviccs are wcU defmcd and COl policies are enforced. 

8. Implement policies that ensul'e T &T A pl"Oviders do not contract separately 10 

provide services to grantees or, in the rnre circwllstancc a contract lIIay be 

ncccssal"y, require pl;or OJP appro'·al before T &T A pl"Oviders' conlmet scpamfely 

with grantees or accept s ubawards from a gr-dntee's contractor. 

111e Office of Justice Programs agrees with both Recommendation Numbers 7 and 8, and 

has already implementcd thc necessary corrective action to address these findin gs_ "I11C 

issue ofTTA providers complying with COl policies is particularly acute in the area of 

tribal construction becausc of the relatively few professionals with expericnce in tribal 

corrections infrastructure. BJA, itself, first recognized the concern as eaTly as 2008, and 

in 2013, after renewed concerns, directly addressed this issue in three sepaTate ways: 

1) BJA finalized a relevant special condition to attach to tribal ITA awards. To 

ensure that any outside work with the grantees was conducted openly and 

without an impernli~sible connict of in teresI, the following special condition 

was added to TTA awards begilUling in FY 2013: 

Recipient understands and agrees nOllO engage in activities conslil1lling 

organizational conflicts of Interest such as bidding on specifications that 

yOll guided as part of the provision of training and technicClI assisfCInce 

finder Ihis award. Forbidden organizational con/licls ofimerest are 

described more jidly in detail in the Federal Acquisition Regulations. 48 

C.FR_ § 9_505. Prior approva1fromyour grant manager is requiredfor 

any work with a grantee. 

2) Frequently Askcd Questions (FAQs), developed in consultation with and 

approved by OGC, were added to the CT AS solicitation addressing the issue 

that same year so that the grantces would al~o he awarc of this potential 

concern. 

3) Final1y, as thi ~ issue evolved, a new special condition was de veloped and 

added to awards in FY 2016, to make tribal grantees aware of possible COl 

consequences of contracting with ITA providers. The language oflhat 

condition is as follows: 

16 

84
 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
Recipient understand~ and agrees not to engage in activities constituting 

organizational conflicts of interest. for recipient or any other 

orgamzation, such as awarding contracts (to be paid in whole or in parI 

with grant funds) to Department of Justice-!unded training and technical 

assistance (ITA) prOviders that guided project specifications as part of the 

provision of training and technical assistance to the recipient of/hiS 

award. Forbidden organizational conflicts of Interest are described more 

fillly in detail in the Federal Acquisition Regulations. 48 C.PR_ § 9_505-

Prior approvalfrom JOltr grant manager i$ requiredfor any work with a 

Department of Justice-funded ITA provider. 

OlP has recognized the COl issue, and has already effectively dealt with it on multiple 

levels (see Attachment 6). 

Accordingly, the Office of Justice Programs requests closure of Recommendation 

Numbers 7 and 8. 

9. Analyze the costs and benefits of including master planning sen 'iccs as a sen-icc 

pro" d~d through T&TA. 

TIle Office of Justice Programs agrees with this reC<.lmmcndation. As previously stated 

BJA disconlinued Ihc TJSIP planning granls in FY 201410 all ow for more resources to 

support renovation projecl~ . Applicants are instead encouraged to apply for funding 

Ihrough thc CTAS, PA 2 forthc CTJSS P in order 10 conduct a morc comprehensivc 

assessmenl of thcir justice system necds and rcsources_ '111is program, instituled in FY 

2012, initially was stmctured similarly to the TJSIP planning program in that grantees 

were awardcd funds 10 dcvclop the plans with the guidance of a 8 JA-fundcd 'ITA 

provider. 

Sever.!l of the tribes opted to use the funds 10 contract with an outside organization to 

conduct the needs assessment and write the strategic plan. However, the level of service 

and/or quality of the product that the tribes received was inconsistent, and did not 

necessarily meet the DOJ standards in order for the tribes to qualify for priority flUlding. 

DOJ modified the CTJSSP to enhance the ITA provided to the tribes and ensure a more 

cost-effective and consistent approach that instructs the grantees through a proccss to 

develop a plan meets OOJ standards ruld requirements. 

Specifi cally, Ihe CTJSSP grantees are nOI pennitlcd 10 lise granl funds for contractual or 

consulting costs for oulside training and tecllllical ass tance providcrs, or outside 

organizations to create a strategic plrul for the tribc. DOJ fund s a IT A provider team, at 

no cost 10 thc CTJSSP grantces, 10 ss ~t in all aspects of the strategic planning process_ 

This includes extensive on-site and olTice-based support for facilitating the strategic 

planning process, fonning a slralegi c planning team, conducting a comprehensive needs 

a.~sess , identifying commWlity strengths and resources, definin g community 

chal1enges, and developing strategies to strengthen the applicant's justice system. 

17 

85
 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
As previously stated in OJP's response to Recommendation Numbers 1 and 4-6, if BJA 

awards funds for planning projects specific to tribal construction in thc future, it will 

structure the program to ensure that the most cost-effective approach to provide technical 

assistance to grantees is used_ BJA will examine the model for l yrA used by the CTJSSP 

program for the provision of services and resources to Ihe tribes to complete their 

planning process, and adapt the structure ofthe TJSIP planning ITA to meet the needs of 

the TJSIP gmntees_ 

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

10. Ensun' that once T JSIP fund s arc awarded , a11 work products submitted by 

grantees are re\'iClt·ed and approved in a timely manner. 

TIle Office of Justice Programs agrees with this recommendat ion. OJP agrees that BJA 

should enhance its grants management policy to ensure that work products and 

deliverables submitted by grantees are reviewed in a timely maimer. Accordingly, by 

December 31, 2016, BIA will revise its Publication Review Policy to ensure that the 

grantees are notified in writing in the event the quality of the work product or delivemb1c 

does not meet BJA's expectations. 

'Inc Office of Justice Programs considers this recommendation resolved and requests 

written acceptance of this action from your office. 

II, Remedy $19,273 in IUlsuppol1ed costs related to deficiencies with fedel"lll ft"llvel and 

Alpha Corp's Im,'el poUdes. 

The Office of Justice Programs agrees with this recommendation. OIP wi11 coordinate 

with the vendor to rcmedy the $19,273 in unsupported costs related to deficiencies with 

federal travel and Alpha Corp 's travel policies. If the costs are detemlined to be 

unallowable, or are not adequately supported, OIP will request that the vendor retun! the 

funds to the DOl. 

TIle Office of Justice Programs considers this recommendation resolved and requests 

written acceptance of this action from your ofrice. 

12. Ensure compliance ,,·ilh the liAR ,,·hen a,,·arding cuntmcts as ,,·ell as thmughout 

the execution ora contract, which i.ncludes properly documenti.ng changes to the 

contract, reviewing invoices to ensm·c costs arc al10wable and supported, and 

monitoring contractors to ensun' compliance with contract perfonnance. 

TIle Office of Justice Programs agrees with this recommendation, and has already 

implemcnted improvemcnts to its contracting process_ OIP 's Office of Administration, 

Acquisition Management Division (AMD) implemented the use of standard modification 

language in I'Y 201 1 to cnsure that CQntract changes were propcrly documcnted_ 

Controlct actions above the Simplified Acqui~ition ·I11reshold (currently $ 150,0(0) are 

reviewed at the Associate and Deputy Director levels in AMD to ensure compliance with 

18 

86
 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), when soliciting, awarding, and modifying 

contracts_ In addition, contract ct ~ above $ 1 M are reviewed by OGC to ensure 

compliance with the FAR and DOl's procurement rules (see Attachment 7). 

Additionally, in December 2012, OJP implemented a new contract writing system, the 

Justice og ~ Ac ui~iti n Management Sy!;tem (JI'AMS), which allows contract fil e 

documents to be developed, reviewed, approved, and stored within this system. Funher, 

in January 20 I 5, OJP converted to an electronic contract filing !;ystcm_ All contract fi le 

documents are electronically stored in both JP AMS and in a secure, OJP shared drive; 

therefore, all contract documents are easily accessible and backed-up on a daily basis to 

ure fil es are not lost or destroyed (see Attachment 8). 

FunhemlOre, all invoices are submitted fo r review and approval in JP A11S. Contracting 

Officer's Representatives (CORs), Contract Specialists (CSs), and Contracting Officers 

(COs) review the invoices to ensure costs are allowablc and supported with the 

appropriate documentation_ In vo ce~ for contract actions above the Simplified 

Acquisition Threshold are also reviewed by the COR, the CS, and the CO, to ensure 

compliance with the FAR and Fedcral Travel Regulations_ Accordingly, tbe Office of 

Justice Programs rcqucsts closure of this recommendation_ 

Thank you for your continued col1aboration to improvc thc administration of our grant progmms_ 

If you have any ques io ~ regarding thi ~ response, please contact Ralph E. Martin, Director, 

Office of Audit, Assessmcnt, and Management, at (202) 305-1802_ 

Attachments 

cc: Beth McGarry 

Principal Deputy Assistrult Attorney General 

Maureen A. Henneberg 

Deputy Assistant Attomey General 

L.1(a Allen 

Scnior Policy Advisor 

Denise O' Donnell 

Director 

Bureau of Justice Assistance 

Philip Merkle 

Director 

Offi ce of Administration 

Leigh Benda 

Cbief Financial Offi cer 

19 

87
 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
cc: Ralph E. Martin 

Director 

Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management 

Rafael . Madan 

General Counsel 

Silas v. Darden 

Director 

Office of Communications 

Richard P. Theis 

Director, Audit Liaison Group 

Internal Review and Evaluation Office 

Justice Management Division 

OJP Executive Secretariat 

Control Title [1'201 608 1.7110236 

20 

88
 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
u.s. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

~_D WJI 

MEMORANDUM TO: Michael E. Horowitz 

Inspector General 

United States Depar1ment of Justice 

TIlROUGH: Jason R. Malmstrom 

Assistant Inspector General for Audit 

Office of the lnspector General 

United States (I\f Justice 

FROM: Karol V. Mason 

Assistant Anorney General 

SUBJECT: Addendum to the Response dated August 5, 2016 to the Office of 

the Inspector General's Draft Audit Report, Audit o/t~ Office oj 

Justice Programs Tribal Justice Systems I".frastruclure Program 

This memorandum serves as an addendum to the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) memorandum 

dated September 8, 2016 whlch responded to the-Office of the Inspector~neral's (OIG) August 

5, 2016, draft audit report entitled. Audit o/the Office 0/ Justice Progroms Tr;6a/ Justice Systems 

Infrastructure Program. 

This addendum responds to the OIG revised draft report provided to OJP on December 22, 2016, 

which included changes based on additional information provided from Alpha Corp and a 

revision to Recommendation 12. 

OJP's position remains unchanged in that we respectfully disagree with many oftbe facts used to 

draw conclusions related to the Bureau of Justice Assistances' (BJA) oversight arid management 

of the Triba1 Justice Systems Infrastructure Program. Specifically, OJP does not agree with the 

conclusions that were drawn related to inadcquades with oversight and monitoring of the 

program, ineffective coordination with BlA, the construction of excessively large facilities. and 

unnecessary planning activities. OJP continues to maintain that BJA's decisions to fund the 

planning grants in question, and to fund the construction of the Tuba City and Kayenta facilities, 

were justified for legal and policy reasons, and that the sizes of the facilities were justified 

particularly given 1) the uninhabitable conditions of existing facilities that led to the 1992 

consent decree, 2) the population to be served. and 3) increasing demands on the Navajo 

89
 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
Nation'sjusticc system as a result of Violence Against Woman Act and Tribal Law and Order 

Act provisions. Merely plruming for its current need (boWld by the limitations imposed by the 

existing consent decree) would clearly have been inadequate. The Navajo Nation planned for its 

future, not its present or its past. 

The Navajo Nation is currently taking steps to assess its entire justice system and practices of 

law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges to ensure violent offenders are incarcerated, 

commwrities, arc safer, and justice is secured for victims. OJP recognizes that the changes the 

Navajo Nation is working to put in place will take time to establish and implement. In the 

interim, OJP requested the Navajo Nation devclop a plan towards operationaiizing the Tuba City 

and Kayenta detention facilities. Navajo Nation provided its plan to OJP on December 8, 2016. 

The p!an providcs a detailed assessmcnt of current and planncd actions impacting the entire 

Navajo Nationjustice system. 

To date, both facilities are open and the Navajo Nation has dedicated FY 2017 funds to hire a 

total of 110 positions for Tuba City and Kayenta. Of these, 52 have been filled and vacancy 

announcements for the remaining funded positions have been issued. FWlding for the remaining 

positions will be included in the annual budget cycle for FY 2018. As mentioned previously, 

Navajo is stilJ operating under the 1992 Consent Decree. NaYdjo Nation is working to amend the 

Consent Decree and the detention facilities will be able to begin holding irunates in custody 

beyond the low numbers currently allowed. As part of the full review oftbejustice system, the 

Navajo Police Department (NDPS) is also working to hire more police officers and investigators. 

The NDPS has obtained additional funding to hire 70 police officers and 8 investigators. The 

Office of the Prosecutor was appropriated sufficient funds for FY 2017 to hire 20 total 

prosecutors and juveoile presenting offieen>. In addition on October 31, 2016, Navajo Nation 

hired a Chief Prosecutor. In addition, the Judicial Branch has funds available to hire two District 

Court Judges and a Chief Justice. The Navajo Nation will also be seeking additional funds to hire 

five additional Distriet Court Judges and an Associate Justice. 1brough discussions with tribal 

leadership, OJP remains confident that the Navajo Nation is committed to finding the resources 

to fund the rcmaining positions and has taken significant steps to enhance its recruitment and 

hiring capabilities. 

OJP will vigorously monitor, on an ongoing basis, the Navajo Nation's use of grant-funded jail 

facilities. The purpose of this oversight is to provide the most up to date infonnation to OJP 

management so that the OJP Assistant Attorney General (MO) can continue to coordinate DOJ 

policy matters related to the Navajo Nation. This vigilant oversjght further allows the AAG to 

make appropriate fact and evidence-based decisions related to use of these facilities consistent 

with the fuets as they may change over time. 

2 

90
 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
Ihe revised draft audit report contained an update to Recommendation 12 to which OJP 

maintains its original response. 

12. Ensure (ompUance with the FAR when awarding contract! as well as throu&hout 

the e.u :eutloh or. contract, which includes properly documenting changes to the 

contract, and reviewing invoices to enllure cost! are allowable and supported. 

The Office of Justice Programs agrees with this recommendation. and has already 

implemented improvements to its contracting process. OJP's Office of Administration, 

Acquisition Management Division (AMD) implemented the use of standard modification 

language in FY 2011 to ensure that contract changes were properly documented. 

Contract actions above the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (currently $ 150,000) are 

reviewed at the Associate and Deputy Director levels in AMD to ensure compliance with 

the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), when soliciting, awarding, and modifYing 

contracts. In addition, contract actions above $ IM are reviewed by OGC to ensure 

compliance with the FAR and OOJ's procurement rules. 

Additionally, in December 2012, OJp implemented a new contmet writing system, the 

Justice Programs Acquisition Management System (JPAMS), which allows contract file 

documents to be developed, reviewed, approved, and stored within this system. Further, 

in January 2015, OIP converted to an electronic contract filing system. All contract file 

documents are electronically stored in both JPAMS and in a secure, OIP shared drive; 

then::fore, all contract documents are easily accessible and backed-up on a daily basis to 

ensure files are not lost or destroyed. 

Funhennore, all invoices are submitted for review and approval in JPAMS. Contracting 

Officer's Representatives (COIU), Contract Specialists (CSs), and Contracting Officers 

(COs) review the invoices to ensure costs are allowable and supported with the 

appropriate documentation. Invoices for contract actions above the Simplified 

Acquisition Threshold are also reviewed by the COR., the CS, and the CO, to ensure 

compliance with the FAR and Federal Travel Regulations. Accordingly. the Office of 

Justice Programs requests closure of this recommendation. 

Thank you for your continued collaboration to improve thc adminislralion of our grant programs. 

If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Ralph E. Martin, Director, 

Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management, at (202) 305- 1802. 

cc: Beth McGarry 

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney Genera] 

Maureen A. Henncbcrg 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Operntions and Management 

Denise O' Donnell 

Direct", 

Bureau of Justice Assistance 

3 

91
 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
cc: Tracey Trautman 

Deputy Director for Programs 

Bureau of Justice Assistance 

Ralph E. Martin 

Director 

Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management 

Rafael A. Madan 

General Counsel 

Silas V. Darden 

Director 

Office of Communications 

Richard P. Theis 

Director, Audit Liaison Group 

Internal Review and Evaluation Office 

Justice Management Division 

OJP Executive Secretarial 

Control Title IT20160817110236 

4 

92
 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
                                                            

. ,." ". 

· 35 · ~. ,URS ." 

APPENDIX 5 

ALPHA CORPORATION’S RESPONSE 

TO THE DRAFT AUDIT REPORT54 

3S.RI<\glIop~.So.IIIt200 

O"O, ..... 2Il'~ 

_103.'SO.oeoo 

Fa.: 103.<50.00<3 

January 6, 2017 

Via Electronic Mail 

David .M.Sheeren@usdoj ,gov 

David M. Sheeren 

Regional Audit Manager 

Denver Regional Audit Office 

Office of the Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Justice 

1120 Lincoln Street, Su~e 1500 

Denver, CO 80203 

Re: Alpha Corporation's Response to United States Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector Audit Divi sion Draft Audit Report captioned AUDIT OF THE 

OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS' TRIBAL JUSTICE SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE 

PROGRAM (" Draft Report") 

Dear Mr. Sheeren: 

Please accept this letter as the Alpha Corporation's written response to the Draft Report. Alpha 

Corporation submits the instant letter to further support' its objection to and disagreement with 

certain OIG recommendations relating to an alleged overpayment, as well as to "unallowable" 

and "unsupported" costs. 

We remain available to further discuss this matter with you. 

I. IntroductionlExecutive Summary 

Alpha disputes and disagrees with DIG's recommendations that: BJA overpaid Alpha 

Corporation $2,740 for ~s Project Coordinator position (No. 3.c): BJA should remedy $22,574 

unallowable per diem travel expenses and $15,022 for unallowable travel costs (No. 3.c); and 

BJA should remedy $19,273 in alleged unsupported costs related to Alpha Corporation's travel 

expenses (No. 11). There was no overpayment for the Project Coordinator position because all 

hours invoiced were actually worked. Almost the entire balance of expenses that lacked 

"adequate supporting documentation" represents actual costs that Alpha incurred in connection 

t Alpha previousi\' submitled to 010 lhrough OJP (ij a response dated. May 13. 201610 0I0's Wo1<ing Draft Report: (0) a 

suppemental response. dated. ~mber 27. 2016 in response tc 0I0's initial Draft Report; (iij supplementa l response, dated. 

Octobe< 3. 2016 in response to qcoesticns hern 0 10 r"lating 10 Alpha'$ September Z7'" ~ to 010'$ initia l Draft Repc<t: and (IV) 

suppemental intorm;ltion via ele<:troni:: mail, dated, November 1,2016. Alpha also p;oni::iJWed in a ronf" r"ro::e ca l WIt1 ClIO on 

Friday. October 28, 2016 . 

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

93 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
David M. Sheeren 

Regional Audit Manager 

Denwr Regional Audit Office 

Office of the Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Justice 

January 6. 20171 Page 2 of 8 

with getting its personnel to the many remote project sites. While Alpha Corporation did not 

retain and submit all receipts for its travel expenses because of its good faith albeit mistaken 

understanding that it was permitted to be reimbursed under a per diem reimbursement, in 

Recommendation No. 3.c as to both ·unallowable per diem trawl expenses' and ·unallowable 

travel costs", OIG fails to acknowledge that the company incurred and paid actual trawl 

expenses in the amounts invoiced to permit its personnel to perform the Agreement in the many 

remote locations required. Finally, OIG's calculation of alleged unsupported costs (No. 11) 

owrstates the amount by $12,694.68 in expenses, which amount is supported by receipts 

provided with Alpha's Invoice No.1 0 

II. Alpha Corporation Fully Performed Under the Agreement. 

The Agreement was an open-ended task or call order contract whereby Alpha was to provide 

BJA with logistical. administratiV€, management and support services (Agreement, Altachment 

A Statement of Work) in relation to BJA's "effort to oversee the implementation and progress of 

renovation and construction projects under the Correctional Facilities on Tribal Lands (CFTL) 

Grant Program' (SOW). Alpha Corporation supported grantees receiving funding under the 

Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (OCCSSA) and American Reinvestment and 

Recovery Act (ARRA). Alpha was to assess the progress of projects funded by OCCSSA and 

ARRA and awards under CFTL to ensure that the constructionfrenovation projects were being 

completed in a cost--efficient manner on schedule and in accordance with the appropriate 

correctional facility standards 

Alpha Corporation·s scope of work under the Agreement included reporting information to BJA 

on a quarterly basis about the progress of construction based on quarterly site visits, identifying 

risks and changes to the proJect, and reporting construction schedule progress and project 

budget status for each of the approximate sixty (60) projects cowred by the Agreement Alpha 

Corporation fully and professionally performed its scope of work as witnessed by its Site Visit 

Reports and other deliverables and communications protocols, including conducting quarterly 

face-Io-face meetings with BJA; producing monthly progress reports; developing and 

maintaining a project and program risk register: supplying photographic documentation for 

interactive geographic map; and email and telephonic exchanges with BJA 

During site visits, Alpha Corporation personnel documented current project scopes of work 

based on observations and reviews of then-available project construction documents. Alpha 

Corporation was not included in the project scope adjustment process, nor did BJA request 

Alpha Corporation to evaluate programmatic changes ewn though, with Alpha's Site Visit 

Reports, such programmatic changes were made evident. 

Alpha Corporation's scope of duties under its contract with BJA was nor a construction manager 

and did not include full time. on-site assignment on any of the projects, including, the Navajo 

94
 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
David M. Sheeren 

Regional Audit Manager 

DenV€r Regional Audit Office 

Office of the Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Justice 

January 6. 20171 Page 3 of 8 

Nation projects. Rather, as tasked by and agreed upon with BJA, Alpha Corporation typically 

performed half-day to full day site evaluations on a quarterly basis. Based on its quarterly site 

visits, Alpha Corporation personnel would clearly note status of project scope, budget, and 

schedule and report that information to BJA via a written site visit report. Alpha Corporation 

also reported on ARRA requirements as documented in the Site Visit Reports along with 

reporting on actual conditions, quality control, and project control activities. 

Over the tenn of the Agreement, Alpha Corporation produced the following estimated 

number of deliV€rables and attended and participated in the following meetings in relation to the 

approximale sixty (60) projects2

: 

Attended 18 BJAiAlpha Corporation Quarterly Briefing Meetings with Status, Risk 

Register and Tribal Outreach Quarterly Calendar discussions: 

Prepared 59 Progress and Financial Reports; 

Engaged on 63 grant-funded construction/renovation projects; 

Participated in 168 face-Io-face Grantee Meetings to discuss issues related to design 

andlor construction status; 

Participated in 213 face-Io-face Project Meetings; 

Prepared 152 Site Visit Reports; 

Prepared 47 Telephonic Outreach Reports: 

Prepared 103 Email Interim Project Status Update Reports; 

Updated the Program Website 93 times; 

Prepared 34 NEPA Progress Reports; and 

Prepared 2 Juvenile Justice Reports 

Alpha Corporation's superior performance and the s ignificant value it brought to the projects 

through its services performed under the Agreement are demonstrated by the consistenlly 

superior evaluations the company received for its work under the Agreement. Copies of Alpha 

Corporation's Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS) for the periods 

09130/2009 through 0912912010, 0913012010 through 09/3012011, and 0913012011 through 

0412512014 are attached as Exhibit 1. 

1 During !he October 28. 2016 conference cal betvoeen OIG. BJA and Alpha Corpo<a!ion. OIG advised that it ur>derstood that Alpha 

C<:Jrporalion _ ""~ responsible for eighteen (18) projects under the Agreemenl OIG appears to have mistaken~ understood that 

only ARRA fun(led projects _e <::<:l'>'ered by IheAg<eemenl In tact, Al pha CorJXlration "<\$ responsible 10< "'JXlr1ing to BJAon 

""'" sixty (~ projects. 

95
 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
David M. Sheeren 

Regional Audit Manager 

DenV€r Regional Audit Office 

Office of the Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Justice 

January 6. 20171 Page 4 of 8 

A. OIG Should Withdraw Recommendation No. 3.c Relating to Alleged OVerpayment 

Because Alpha Corporation's Invoice No. 21 Properly Billed for 189 Hours for the 

Project Coordinator, and therefore, it did not overbill BJA in the amount of $2,470. 

OIG claims that Alpha Corporation overbilled BJA $2,470 by including twenty-three (23) 

hours for a Project Coordinator which was not supported by any timesheet submitted in 

support of one invoice (Invoice No. 21). Alpha Corporation invoiced BJA for one hundred 

eighty-nine (189) hours for two employees who had worked as Project Coordinator during 

the monlh invoiced, but il only included timesheels lola ling one hundred sixty-six (166) 

hours. Alpha Corporation reviewed its electronic copy of Invoice No. 21 and confirmed that 

timesheets for the Project Coordinalor only supported one hundred sixty-six (166) hours 

Alpha Corporation also confirmed that for one of the two employees (Employee 10 No. 811) 

who had worked as Project Coordinator only had one timesheel coV€ring only one-half of 

the monthly billing period, which showed three (3) hours worked for the period August 16 

through August 31, 2011 for BJA (identified internally as ' F452-01 0-39"). There was no 

timesheet for Employee 10 No. 811 for the period August 1 through August 15, 2011 

attached to Invoice No. 21 

Consequently, Alpha Corporation conducted a search of the particular employee's 

(Employee 10811) timesheet history for the billing period August 1 through 31 , 2011 using 

its Deltek GCS Premier Accounting software, which accepts, records and stores electronic 

timesheet entries by employees. Deltek's limesheet history report for Employee 10811 

revealed that she had worked a total of twenty-six (26) hours during the entire monthly 

billing period for BJA (i.B. F452-010-39).' A copy of the Timesheet History Report for that 

employee is attached as Exhibit 2. Accordingly, OIG should withdraw and delete from its 

findings and recommendations (No. 3.c.) that Alpha Corporation billed BJA an unallowable 

expense in lhe amount of $2,470 for the Project Coordinator position because Invoice No 

21 correctly identified one hundred eighty-nine (189) hours for the Project Coordinator 

position 

l Deltel<"s Timesheet Hista"y Rep:>n makes c lear that Employee to 811 cornpteted her electronic timesheet during the ~ng period 

to reftect her Project Coordinator v.ork for SJA (F4S2.()1 (l.(I39) during the tj."",*,1<!y pay period August 1 through 15. 20"11. Alpha 

C<:i<pOration has nO krl<:>Me<lge ..... y Err'"fItoree 10 811"5 lirne$~ for the period AL>gu$I l1hroogh 15, 20"1 1 was not attached to 

Invoice No 21 . 

96
 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
David M. Sheeren 

Regional Audit Manager 

Denwr Regional Audit Office 

Office of the Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Juslice 

January 6. 20171 Page 5 of 8 

B. Notwithstanding the per diem Payments, Alpha Corporation submits Its travel and 

supply expenses constituted reasonable charges and resulted in cost-savings to 

the Government because of the cost-efficient and cost-effective travel planning 

method used by it and BJA. 

OIG finds that BJA improperly paid Alpha Corporation $22,574 in per diem reimbursement 

because the Agreement was a time and materials contract requiring reimbursement through 

the actual expense method. Initially, Alpha Corporation induded itemization of its per diem 

expenses, but when trawl requirements began to increase in frequency, number and 

complexity in or about June 2010, in good faith it understood that reimbursement under the 

lodging-plus per diem method of reimbursement would be permitted and would have the 

benefit of reducing adminislratiw costs and inconvenience for all parties. Based on its good 

faith (albeit mistaken) belief that it was permissible to be reimbursed for travel and supply 

expenses through a lodging-plus per diem method under the Agreement, its personnel did 

not provide itemized amounts for meals and incidental expenses (M&IE) on their expense 

reports nor did they retain or submit receipts for these expense items' 

Alpha Corporation went to great lengths 10 pre-plan alilravel and schedule its site visits in 

the most cost-efficient and cost-effective way to minimize the cost of travel and supply 

expenses under the Agreement. Alpha Corporation submits that notwithstanding the 

mislaken practice of utilizing the lodging -plus per diem reimbursement method, the 

government realized a cost-savings through its coordinated travel under the Agreement. 

OIG's recommendation (within No. 3.c) should be amended to recognize that the company 

incurred actual expenses for meals and incidentals. 

~ The Alpha Corporation t ..... el polity provided to OIG in Of .. boot Oct:>ber 20' S was net eIIecti'<e unto after \tie eIIecti'<e date of the 

Agreement. ~ef, the intent cf that policy YlGslor Alpha Corporation to seek reimbursement I.om ci ents lor dire<::! CO$I$, 

including. travel eXpenses. in accadance wth thetem~cf thecbent agreement. poIicyor applicable regulation. Consequently. ~ 

the clien! agreement, policy Of appicable regulation alkMed IOf reirri)o.J rwmenl cf travet e.penses on a kldging·ptus perdiem basi$, 

then Alpha Corporation e"1'~ v.QU1d fottcwthat method even thoLJg h It>e company iIseII did not allow for that method d 

reimbLXSernf!tntouWde cf the client agreement. Further, as to missing reoe<pI$, """ '1 Alpha CorpOfalion requr ed they be p-ovided, 

~ v.QU~ reirrt>urse an emp~ "';thoot a reoeip! ~ a tegitim;lte ""planation YlGS provided as to wily the rer:eipt was missing. 

97
 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
David M. Sheeren 

Regional Audit Manager 

Denwr Regional Audit Office 

Office of the Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Justice 

January 6. 20171 Page 6 of 8 

C. Alpha Corporation and BJA Implemented Methods and Controls that were both 

Efficient and Cost·Effective Resulting in Reasonable Travel and Supply Expenses 

under the Agreement. 

Alpha Corporation made every effort to minimize costs associated with travel and it is 

confident that its travel expenses - whether based on per diem or actual cost resulted in 

reasonable charges. Toward that end, Alpha Corporation worked with BJA to minimize total 

trawl expenditures. All travel was planned out on a quarterly basis. An example of the 

typical travel plan schedule is attached as Exhibit 3 (FY 2013 3'0 Quarter -Alpha Tribal 

Outreach Visitation Schedule). To minimize costs, site visits were grouped geographically 

such that multiple Tribes were visited in a single week. Grouping the site visits resulted in a 

reduction in the overall number of round trip travel costs that would have otherwise resulted 

if these sites were not grouped as indicated. It also is worth noting that the project sites were 

located in remote destinations with limited air travel, car rental, and hotel options. Alpha 

Corporation's practice of grouping site visils was carried out through the life of the 

Agreement . 

Any analysis of the reasonableness of Alpha Corporation's trawl and supply expenses 

under the Agreement requires consideration oflhe purpose of the travel and its utility. The 

total amount of travel and supply expenses over the Agreement's five (5) year term 

amounted to approximately $220,000, which allowed Alpha Corporation to make one 

hundred flfty.two (152) site visits and produce a corresponding number of Site Visit 

Reports. Thus, the travel and supply cost per site visit was approximately One Thousand 

Four Hundred Forty.seven Dollars ($l,447.(X» s, which induded airfare, hotel, car rental, 

telephone costs, and M&IE. Considering the difficulty oftraveling to many of the project 

siles that were in remote locations, Alpha Corporation's cost per-Site Visit provided a good 

value to the government 

Thus, while Alpha Corporation did not retain and submit all receipts for its travel expenses 

because of its good faith albeit mistaken understanding that it was permitted to be 

reimbursed under a per diem reimbursement. in Recommendation No. 3.c, OIG fails to 

acknowledge that the company incurred and paid actual trawl expenses in the amounts 

invoiced to permit its personnel to perform the Agreement in the many remote locations 

required. OIG·s recommendation as to ' unallowable travel costs· (within No. 3.c) should be 

amended to recognize that the company incurred actual expenses for meals and incidentals 

S Th Os amount cIoes not include theaclditional ~ings. such "'" regional meetings and qual'ler1y "-;"gs that AlpI1a Corporation 

personnel participated in d ... ;"g the Ag rOOn'Wl"hterm. 

98
 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
David M. Sheeren 

Regional Audit Manager 

DenV€r Regional Audit Office 

Dffice of the Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Justice 

January 6. 20171 Page 7 of 8 

D. DIG's Calculation of Alpha Corporation's " Unsupported Costs" (Recommendation 

No. 11) Is overstated by $12,694.68. 

OIG claims that there were "$19,273 in unsupported costs' included in Alpha Corporation's 

invoices, including "$17,080 in invoice costs that lacked adequate supporting 

documentation, and $2,193 in other unsupported travel expenses." Draft Report, at 52 and 

57. OIG's calculation is incorrect. The error in DIG's calculation of its tota l of ·unsupported 

costs' stems from its erroneous calculation of ' unsupported costs' relating to Invoice No.1 0 

in which Alpha Corporation invoiced $22.003.67 for travel and supply expenses. DIG claims 

that Invoice No. 10 reflects $12,601.70 (Tab 3, OIG Excel spreadsheet provided just prior to 

Exit Interview) in "unsupported" travel and supply expenses. DIG's stated amount is 

incorrect because it has ignored the majority of BJA project-related expenses that were 

included in Invoice No. 10 with supporting documentation relating to Alpha Corporation 

employees Based on DIG's Excel spreadsheet, it appears that 

DIG only included expenses for the month of I and only included 

expenses for part of the latter portion of Invoice No. 10 totals 

!I!!!!!I!!lJl1I $21 ,349.9:f in travel and supply expenses for both and compared to DIG's I amount of 

$9,201 .97.' Thus, DIG cannot claim any unsupported expense for Invoice No. 10 in any 

amount greater than $653.74 and Recommendation No. 11 's remedy should be modified to 

reduce the alleged amount of "unsupported costs· to no greater than $7,125.04 of which 

amount Alpha Corporation actually incurred and paid expenses and costs in that amount 

even if documentation is incomplete or lacking. 

III. Conclusion 

For all the foregoing reasons and those previously provided in its prior submissions and 

communications with OIG, Alpha Corporation respectfully submits that the OIG should: 

(i) withdraw that portion of its recommendation as to remediation of an alleged 

overpayment for the Project Coordinator pOSition in the amount of $2,470 (within No 

3.c) because there was no overpayment for actual hours worked as demonstrated by 

time sheets provided to DIG: 

o Tt1 i$ amount e.cludes expense amounts for rental auto insurance and II"soIine and lt1re>e (3) rniS$ing hotel r«,eiplS tor. i A true ~nd aocura!e copy 0/ Irrvoice No. 10 along with supporting receipts and an Excel spreadsheet breaking down the expenses 

"'""'5 prwided toOiG on November 2. 2016 

99
 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
David M. Sheeren 

Regional Audit Manager 

DenV€r Regional Audit Office 

Office of the Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Justice 

January 6. 20171 Page 8 of 8 

(ii) modify its recommendation as to remediation of unallowable per diem expenses 

(within No. 3.c) to recognize that the company incurred actual expenses for meals 

and incidentals under the Agreement; 

(iii) modify its recommendation as to remediation of unallowable travel costs (within No. 

3.c) to recognize that the company incurred actual travel costs as invoiced under the 

Agreement; and 

(iv) modify its findings and recommendations relating to ' unsupported costs' that are 

currently included in the Draft Report (No. 11) consistent with this letler by reducing 

the figure to an amount no greater than $7.125 from $19,273 (i. e. a $12.148 

decrease) along with the acknowledgement that the company incurred actual 

expenses in that same or SUbstantially similar amount 

Alpha Corporation looks forward to meeting and coordinating with BJA to review and remedy as 

appropriate any expenses and costs that OIG characterized as ' unsupported" and · unallowable" 

in an effort to demonstrate such costs were actually and reasonably incurred in furtherance of 

the company's performance of the Agreement 

Respectfully submitted, 

Philios Angelides, PE, F.SAME, President 

pa/md 

cc' .""IIIii!!!! Kate C. Lindsey, Chairman/CEO 

PE, LEED AP, 

~~ dent, General Manager - National Capital Region 

" ' PE, CCM, LEED, Vice President 

Contract File F452-OOO 

@usdoi·90V) 

100 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

APPENDIX 6 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
 

ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF ACTIONS 

NECESSARY TO CLOSE THE REPORT
 

The OIG provided a draft of this audit report to OJP. OJP’s response is 

incorporated in Appendix 4 of this final report. In addition, Alpha Corp, a T&TA 

provider for the grant program, provided a response included in Appendix 5 of this 

report. The following provides the OIG’s analysis of these responses and summary 

of actions necessary to resolve the report. 

Analysis of OJP’s Response 

In response to our audit report, OJP concurred with our recommendations 

and discussed the actions it will implement in response to our findings. For some 

recommendations, the implementation of the stated actions should remedy the 

issues we found. However, OJP also stated that it does not agree with many facts 

and conclusions presented in the report. Throughout the audit, we considered 

OJP’s position along with all the information we obtained and analyzed during the 

audit. We also provided OJP with multiple chances to provide documentation 

relevant to the findings, and to provide alternative actions that would help address 

the recommendation. Ultimately, we were not able to identify sufficient basis to 

retract the audit’s conclusions with which OJP disagrees, and despite our multiple 

discussions with OJP to resolve these issues, OJP’s proposed actions for some 

recommendations do not adequately address our findings. As a result, the status of 

the audit report is unresolved. 

Throughout its response, OJP provided additional statements that we believe 

need to be addressed separately from the recommendations. First, OJP stated that 

the OIG included in its audit conclusion information on three tribes (Tribes 1, 2, 

and 3) whose awards were made prior to FY 2009, and, in fact, are outside the 

scope of this audit initially depicted to OJP. The scope, as presented to OJP, 

generally covered grant activities between FYs 2009 and 2013. However, while 

initially awarded by OJP before FY 2009, we identified millions of dollars in taxpayer 

funds spent on facilities that remained unopened until 2015 and 2016, which we 

considered to be a significant issue related to our audit objectives. Additionally, 

grant-related activities occurred during the scope of our audit for each grantee, and 

two tribes (Tribes 1 and 2) were awarded TJSIP funds in 2009, which was within 

our general scope. Further, although OJP noted that the three facilities finally were 

opened and became operational in 2015 and 2016, as detailed in our report, this 

was approximately a decade after the grants were awarded. Finally, it is the 

responsibility of the OIG to inform OJP of deficiencies so that it can implement 

corrective actions and best manage its programs, and we recognize that OJP 

routinely commits itself to such improvement based on our findings. As a result, 

101 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

                                                            

 

given our findings in this audit we believe OJP’s oversight and management 

requires improvement to ensure grant-funded facilities become operational in a 

more timely manner, particularly because grantees have represented that they had 

high need for these facilities, and because of the high cost of building these 

facilities. 

OJP also stated that it disagrees with the OIG’s conclusion that inadequacies 

existed in BJA’s oversight leading to grantee implementation issues. Although OJP 

stated that it believes the OIG did not adequately characterize the level and depth 

of BJA’s oversight and management efforts, OJP did not offer any new information 

that required us to expand our descriptions of BJA’s oversight or alter our 

characterizations thereof. As we explain in our report, our assessment of BJA’s 

oversight and management activities along with our findings on particular grantees 

represent areas in which BJA can improve. 

OJP additionally stated that the OIG failed to report a critical point that there 

is a timing gap between BJA’s appropriation of funds that support construction and 

renovation, and BIA’s budget request and appropriation of funds to support the 

operations and management of those facilities. Our report notes this issue and 

states that due to BIA’s appropriation process, BIA cannot guarantee funding will be 

available at the end of the construction process. We agree that this creates 

challenges, and we believe coordination between BJA and BIA could be improved. 

OJP is aware of the risks this presents to its grant awards and its grantees. 

Navajo Nation 

The OIG previously issued a report related to approximately $70 million 

awarded to the Navajo Nation through the TJSIP.55 Two of the nine 

recommendations from that report are unresolved between the OIG and OJP. Both 

recommendations relate to the documented need for planning funds and 

construction funds spent by the Navajo Nation, which led to the OIG recommending 

that OJP remedy $290,000 in unallowable expenditures associated with two 

planning grants and $32 million in expenditures associated with excessive detention 

facility capacity. The OIG has identified no basis to retract or reconsider the 

conclusions of its specific audit of grants provided to the Navajo Nation, including 

the questioned costs. 

In contrast to that report, which focused on the actions of the Navajo Nation, 

in this report, the OIG questions the adequacy of OJP’s oversight and management 

of the construction awards made to the Navajo Nation. Specifically, OJP failed to 

identify the excess funding request made by the Navajo Nation during the 

application process. Consequently, the Navajo Nation built facilities that were at 

least 250-percent larger than what was presented in its applications. We found no 

55 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, on September 29, 2015. 

102 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

evidence to suggest that BJA officials were aware of the project increases or 

initiated any formal process to review and approve amended plans for an expanded 

facility that would justify the change in project size. Much of OJP’s response to this 

report pertains to issues identified in our prior audit report of the Navajo Nation. 

As such, we are not addressing the majority of OJP’s comments related to the 

Navajo Nation as they are not relevant to this report. 

OJP stated that we use the findings from one grantee, the Navajo Nation, to 

support our conclusion that there were inadequacies in BJA’s due diligence in its 

management of the application process and oversight of awards that led to unused 

planning products and premature funding of construction before adequate planning 

was completed. The OIG disagrees. In this report, we identified a number of 

instances across several tribes to support our conclusion. For example: (1) Tribe 

Number 4 was awarded construction funds before planning was complete, (2) the 

Nebraska Tribes were awarded a number of planning grants that resulted in 

planning products that will likely not be used, (3) Pueblo of Laguna was awarded 

construction funds before adequate funding for the entire project was obtained, and 

(4) Tribe Number 9 completed a planning product that will likely not be used. In 

fact, this report does not discuss the planning grants awarded to the Navajo Nation. 

While OJP continues to disagree with the conclusions related to the prior report on 

the Navajo Nation, the OIG identified other additional instances that support our 

conclusion of inadequacies with BJA’s due diligence in its management of the 

application process and oversight of awards. 

OJP stated that with the planning funds awarded to the Navajo Nation, the 

Navajo Nation was able to construct facilities that addressed the specific needs of 

local communities. We disagree. The Navajo Nation was awarded planning funds 

for facilities in Dilkon, Arizona, and Kayenta, Arizona. Dilkon has not constructed a 

facility and the facility at Kayenta was already under construction prior to the 

completion of the planning product. 

OJP also disputes our finding that the Navajo Nation could have moved 

directly into the architectural and engineering phase of construction, based upon 

the 2007 Master Plan for Tuba City and Kayenta. We concluded that this master 

plan included extremely detailed information for each site, including construction 

budgets; facility purposes, such as detention, courts, and police; facility needs, 

including inmate beds and square footage of specific rooms; and requirements as 

specific as beverage station and refrigerator sizes; and was intended to be used to 

proceed to the construction phase at each district. This conclusion is buttressed by 

the Navajo Nation’s experience in both Tuba City and Crownpoint, where it 

proceeded directly to the construction phase without the creation of a separate 

site-specific master plan. 

OJP further states that, at the time of the 2007 Master Plan, the Navajo 

Nation could not have anticipated the availability of the Recovery Act funding – a 

rare opportunity for tribes to increase their corrections infrastructure. This increase 

in funding allowed the Navajo Nation Department of Corrections to revisit its 

103 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

 

 

original space needs based on the 2005 analysis. However, as our report details, 

the Navajo Nation applied for and was awarded funding based on the 2007 Master 

Plan. We have never been provided documentation showing that a change in scope 

was requested, reviewed, or approved by the Navajo Nation or OJP. 

OJP states that the OIG made an assertion that the facilities built by the 

Navajo Nation provide no apparent benefit to the Navajo Nation or public. This 

statement was made in relation to the resolution process for our prior report and 

was taken out of context. In context, we have questioned, and continue to 

question, the apparent benefit of facilities that currently stand empty or 

substantially empty, and are too costly for the Navajo Nation to operate. 

Additionally, the OIG has never questioned that there is a need for correctional 

facilities by the Navajo Nation. This report reflects the inadequate oversight and 

management of grants for such facilities by BJA, which allowed the Navajo Nation 

to build facilities that were at least 250-percent larger than what was presented in 

the applications. This was done without any evidence to suggest that BJA officials 

were aware of the project increases or initiated any formal process to review and 

approve amended plans for an expanded facility that would justify the change in 

project size. 

OJP states that the term “fully operational” is defined as having the number 

of staff needed to operate at full capacity. We do not disagree that to be fully 

operational the appropriate number of staff need to be hired. However, fully 

operational also includes having appropriate funding for maintenance and 

operations of the facility, as well as having inmates who occupy the facility. Having 

an empty facility or partially used facility that is fully staffed calls into question 

whether the facility is sized appropriately for the intended population. 

Unresolved Recommendations: 

2. Review the circumstances of the facilities that have remained 

unopened or non-operational after the TJSIP grants were closed, 

determine if any grant funds should be repaid by the grantees due to 

the ineffective or inappropriate use of funds, and develop a 

corrective action plan to ensure that all unopened facilities or less 

than fully operational facilities become fully operational within a 

reasonable timeframe. 

Unresolved. OJP stated that it concurred with our recommendation. OJP 

stated in its response that it has reviewed, and continues to monitor, the 

circumstances surrounding the facilities that have remained unopened or 

non-operational after the TJSIP grants were closed by OJP. According to 

OJP, the facilities for three of the tribes described in the OIG report are now 

open and operational: Tribe Number 1 opened in May 2016, Tribe Number 2 

opened in June 2015, and Tribe Number 3 opened in September 2015. 

Further, DOJ’s TJSIP project team continues to work with the Navajo Nation 

to open and fully operationalize the facilities funded through ARRA. 

104 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

Additionally, OJP stated that it implemented a new tool on May 6, 2016, to 

monitor renovation and construction projects after closeout. Grantees are 

now required to report on the status of real property in which the federal 

government retains an interest. Further, all TJSIP grants awarded during the 

FY 2016 cycle, as well as future grants under this program, will include a 

special condition requiring grantees to report on the use and status of real 

property acquired, constructed, or improved under the award, throughout the 

useful life of the property or until the federal interest in the property ceases, 

whichever is shorter. 

While OJP’s response addresses some of the findings in our report, it does 

not address key aspects of our recommendation. Specifically, while OJP’s 

proposed monitoring tool would require grantees to report the status of real 

property in which the federal government retains an interest, OJP has not 

presented a plan to address reported facilities that are less than fully 

operational. Also, the new monitoring tool applies to facilities constructed 

with grants that were active as of May 6, 2016. However, several of the 

facilities we identified were constructed with grants that were no longer 

active, and therefore would not receive such monitoring. OJP stated in its 

response that it conducts bi-weekly meetings to address issues related to 

tribal facilities that are not yet open. Although such meetings undoubtedly 

promote coordination with BIA, they are not directly responsive to our 

recommendation that OJP should develop a corrective action plan to ensure 

facilities that are less than fully operational become fully operational. In its 

response, OJP did not present a corrective action plan to ensure that all 

grant-funded facilities that were unopened or not fully operational prior to 

the implementation of the new monitoring tool on May 6, 2016, become 

operational. OJP has identified at least two facilities at the Navajo Nation 

that have not been fully operationalized, one of which remains unopened. 

This corrective action plan should address these two facilities as well as any 

other facilities funded with TJSIP funds that are less than fully operational. 

As a result, we do not believe OJP’s proposed actions adequately address our 

recommendation, and as a result this recommendation is unresolved. This 

recommendation can be resolved when we receive corrective action plans for 

all facilities that are unopened and for all facilities less than fully operational 

to become operational. 

6. Develop a process to ensure planning grantees or the Tribal Justice 

Systems Strategic Planning Program grantees are provided the tools 

to implement recommendations that resulted from the planning 

process, which may include providing outreach and technical 

assistance. 

Unresolved. OJP stated that it concurred with our recommendation. OJP 

stated in its response that if the TJSIP planning grants are ever reinstated, 

105 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

grantees should receive training and technical assistance to identify their 

implementation needs, including guidance in identifying potential funding 

sources for their strategy. However, OJP did not indicate any action it would 

perform for current active programs. 

After considering OJP’s response, we do not believe the proposed actions 

adequately address our recommendation. Specifically, OJP indicated that it 

would only perform action if the discontinued TJSIP planning program was 

reinitiated, but it did not indicate any action to address its current 

programing for TJSIP planning activities. OJP has changed its programming 

for TJSIP planning, and now encourages tribes to conduct a broader, more 

comprehensive assessment of their justice system needs and resources 

through the CTAS Purpose Area (PA) 2, Comprehensive Tribal Justice 

Systems Strategic Planning Program (CTJSSP), rather than awarding 

planning funds under the TJSIP. Although planning is not conducted under 

the TJSIP, our recommendation is still relevant to grantees under the CTJSSP 

as TJSIP planning is performed more broadly through the CTJSSP. Therefore 

the actions described by OJP are still relevant to the CTJSSP including: 

(1) ensuring grantees’ plans address the costs for constructing or renovating 

a facility, and/or implementing alternative community corrections programs 

(2) that the T&TA providers work with the grantees to identify potential 

sources of funding for both the construction/renovation/implementation of 

the project as well as ongoing operations. We believe that OJP can take 

action immediately to ensure proper planning occurs for TJSIP participants, 

given that the TJSIP planning program has been discontinued. 

Because additional actions are needed by OJP, this recommendation is 

unresolved. This recommendation can be resolved when we receive evidence 

that grantees are provided tools to implement recommendations from the 

planning process, which may include outreach and technical assistance. 

7. Ensure T&TA services are well defined and COI policies are enforced. 

Unresolved. OJP stated that it concurred with our recommendation. OJP 

stated in its response that it has already implemented the necessary 

corrective action to address this finding. It further stated that COI concerns 

were addressed in three ways including: (1) adding a special condition to 

T&TA awards beginning in FY 2013, (2) developing guidance in the 

solicitation addressing the COI issue in FY 2013, and (3) developing a new 

special condition for awards starting in FY 2016 to make tribal grantees 

aware of possible COI consequences of contracting with T&TA providers. 

OJP’s response sufficiently addressed the first part of our recommendation 

for COI policies. But our report also found that T&TA services are not 

adequately defined. Our audit determined that the lack of clear definitions 

may result in wasted and duplicative spending through overlap in the 

106 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

services that T&TA providers provide. OJP did not discuss in its response any 

plans to address this key part of our recommendation. 

After considering OJP’s response, we believe additional actions are needed to 

adequately address our finding. Therefore, this recommendation is 

unresolved. This recommendation can be resolved when we receive evidence 

that OJP has more clearly defined the services provided by T&TA providers. 

9. Analyze the costs and benefits of including master planning services 

as a service provided through T&TA. 

Unresolved. OJP stated that it concurred with our recommendation. OJP 

stated in its response that, if the TJSIP planning grants are ever reinstated, it 

will structure the program to ensure that the most cost-effective approach to 

provide technical assistance to grantees is used. 

OJP indicated that it would only perform action if the discontinued TJSIP 

planning program was reinitiated. It did not indicate any action to address 

its current programming for TJSIP planning activities. OJP has changed its 

programming for TJSIP planning, and now encourages tribes to conduct a 

broader, more comprehensive assessment of their justice system needs and 

resources through CTJSSP, rather than awarding planning funds under the 

TJSIP. The CTJSSP provides T&TA to grantees using a similar approach as 

the TJSIP, in which the OIG identified potential cost savings. Therefore, even 

though planning is not conducted under the TJSIP, this recommendation is 

still relevant to grantees under the CTJSSP, as TJSIP planning is performed 

through the CTJSSP, and we believe that OJP can take action immediately to 

ensure cost-effective planning occurs for TJSIP participants. 

Because the actions that OJP describe do not adequately address the 

recommendation, this recommendation is unresolved. This recommendation 

can be resolved when we receive evidence that OJP has analyzed the costs 

and benefits of including planning services as a service provided through 

T&TA. 

Resolved Recommendations: 

1.	 Coordinate with BIA to improve the design and certificate of 

occupancy processes as well as ensure appropriately sized facilities 

can be funded, completed, opened, and fully operational. This 

includes developing a formal agreement between OJP and BIA to 

document the roles and responsibilities of each agency, expectations 

of each agency, and areas of coordination. 

Resolved. OJP concurred with our recommendation. OJP stated in its 

response that a formal agreement would be useful to establish and document 

107 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

communication protocols, the roles and responsibilities of each agency, and 

areas of coordination. OJP will propose the formal agreement to BIA. 

This recommendation can be closed when we receive a final agreement 

between OJP and BIA. As OJP stated, it may not be able to establish a 

formal agreement with BIA as it does not have authority over BIA. If OJP is 

unable to establish a formal agreement with BIA, this recommendation could 

be closed when we receive evidence demonstrating attempts to establish a 

formal agreement as well as documentation detailing OJP’s formal policies to 

promote coordination. 

3. Remedy $11,603,176 in unallowable costs related to the following: 

a. $10,720,232 awarded to the Nisqually Tribe to fund a 

correctional facility that was not funded or used in conformity 

with the statutory authority of the TJSIP, and that was 

inappropriately built with the intention of being a profitgenerating facility. 

b. $106,277 paid by Tribe Number 10, $124,697 paid by Tribe 

Number 9, $59,326 paid by Tribe Number 8, $30,998 paid by 

Tribe Number 7, $136,494 paid by Tribe Number 11, $285,608 

paid by Tribe Number 12, and $99,480 paid by Tribe Number 13 

for services where a COI existed. 

c.	 $2,470 overpaid to the Project Coordinator position, $22,574 

unallowable per diem travel expenses, and $15,022 for 

unallowable travel costs. 

Resolved. OJP concurred with our recommendation. OJP stated in its 

response, for subpart a, that it will work with the Nisqually Tribe to assess 

whether it is using the facility in accordance with the terms of the agreement 

and provide further guidance to the Nisqually Tribe. For subpart b, OJP 

stated it will examine each case carefully, focusing on the grant requirements 

and COI rules that apply to each party involved and will coordinate an 

appropriate response for each individual situation. For subpart c, OJP stated 

it will coordinate with the vendor to remedy the $40,066 in questioned costs, 

related to the $2,470 overpayment to the Project Coordinator position, the 

$22,574 in unallowable per diem travel expenses, and the $15,022 in 

unallowable travel costs. 

On October 31, 2016, OJP provided the OIG with additional documentation 

submitted by Alpha Corp to OJP on May 13, 2016, to address the questioned 

costs we identified. OJP stated this information had not been provided to the 

OIG earlier due to an oversight by OJP. Alpha Corp included in this 

documentation as well as in its response to the draft report, timesheets to 

108 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

support 23 hours of work by the Project Coordinators for a total of $2,470. 

As a result, we consider these costs remedied. 

Also in Alpha Corp’s additional submission to OJP from May 13, 2016, as well 

as in its response to the draft report, Alpha Corp stated that, while the 

$22,574 received for per diem expenses was mistaken, the company did 

incur actual expenses for meals and incidentals. Therefore, Alpha Corp 

believes that the recommendation related to these questioned costs should 

be amended to recognize that Alpha Corp incurred actual costs meals and 

incidentals. However, although Alpha Corp stated it incurred actual costs, we 

have not been provided any documentation to support expenses that were 

incurred. As a result, we do not have basis to remedy any of the $22,574 in 

unallowable per diem costs. 

Related to the $15,022 in unallowable travel costs, Alpha Corp stated in its 

response that it made every effort to minimize costs associated with travel 

and is confident that its travel expenses – whether based on per diem or 

actual cost – resulted in reasonable charges. Alpha Corp also suggests that 

conducting an analysis of reasonableness of travel and supply expenses 

would result in an assessment that Alpha Corp’s cost per site visit provided a 

good value to the government. The $15,022 in expenses we identified are 

separate from the $22,574 in per diem expenses and relate to expenses that 

did not appear to be reasonable. This included improper methods to allocate 

costs between personal time, TJSIP work, and non-TJSIP work, which 

included combining non-TJSIP work with the TJSIP work during a week and 

charging full hotel and per diem to the TJSIP; or extending work travel 

without working full days to remain in a locale over a weekend. Also 

included in these costs were unauthorized purchases for airfare upgrades and 

unallowable charges for rental cars including upgrades, insurance, and 

prepaid fuel. Although Alpha Corp claims it incurred actual costs at a good 

value to the government, we have not been provided any documentation 

sufficient to adjust our finding that Alpha Corp incurred $15,022 in 

unallowable travel costs. 

This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation 

supporting that the remaining $11,600,706 in unallowable expenditures has 

been remedied. For subpart a, this includes documentation of OJP’s 

assessment of the Nisqually Tribe with adequate support and justification for 

its conclusions, and remedying of any funds from the Nisqually Tribe that 

were not used in accordance with the terms of the agreement. For 

subpart b, this includes documentation of OJP’s assessment of the COIs with 

adequate support and justification for its conclusions, and remedying any 

funds related to a COI. For subpart c, this includes OJP’s assessment of 

questioned costs related to payments made to OJP’s T&TA vendor with 

adequate support and justification for its conclusions, and remedying of any 

funds. 

109 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

4. Enhance its due diligence process to ensure that sufficient 

comprehensive justice planning has been completed before 

construction or renovation, which includes assessing alternative 

treatment needs. This may include requiring and verifying additional 

information that is currently not required as part of the application 

materials - such as an assessment of bed space needs, BIA 

assessment of need and support, a complete construction or 

renovation plan, and inmate population statistics for more than a 

6-month period - as well as assessing the overall impact of awards to 

ensure the grants will meet tribes’ needs and allow them to fully 

open, operate, and maintain the facilities. This also includes 

enhancing its process to deobligate funds more quickly if TJSIP 

grantees are not prepared for construction. 

Resolved. OJP concurred with our recommendation. OJP stated in its 

response that BJA is in the process of drafting standard operating procedures 

for TJSIP that will memorialize existing operating procedures as well as 

address any areas of ambiguity as it relates to administration of the TJSIP. 

If, in the future, BJA reinstates a construction component of the TJSIP, these 

awards will be governed by the TJSIP policy issued by the BJA Director on 

May 20, 2016. The policy requires grantees to provide evidence of sufficient 

funding to complete construction and operationalize the facility. It further 

states that any future solicitation will require applicants to submit relevant 

planning documents that substantiate the need and proposed size of the 

facility, as a separate attachment to their application. As it relates to 

renovation or expansion projects, BJA stated it has requirements in place to 

ensure comprehensive planning has been completed prior to application 

submission. Additionally, for applicants seeking funds for renovation or 

expansion of detention facilities for housing sentenced offenders, BJA will 

conduct an analysis to identify a period of time beyond 6 months that may 

provide a more robust representation of inmate population statistics and 

need. 

This recommendation can be closed when we receive and review the final 

standard operating procedures for the TJSIP that address the administration 

of the TJSIP as well as the analysis related to the required timeframe for 

inmate population statistics supplied by applicants. 

10. Ensure that once TJSIP funds are awarded, all work products 

submitted by grantees are reviewed and approved in a timely 

manner. 

Resolved. OJP concurred with our recommendation. OJP stated in its 

response that BJA should enhance its grants management policy to ensure 

that work products and deliverables submitted by grantees are reviewed in a 

timely manner. By December 31, 2016, BJA will revise its Publication Review 

110 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

Policy to ensure that the grantees are notified in writing in the event that the 

quality of their work product or deliverable does not meet BJA’s expectations. 

This recommendation can be closed when we receive and review the updated 

Publication Review Policy that addresses the timeliness of BJA’s review and 

approval process for work products submitted by grantees. 

11. Remedy $19,273 in unsupported costs related to deficiencies with 

federal travel and Alpha Corp’s travel policies. 

Resolved. OJP concurred with our recommendation. OJP stated in its 

response that it will coordinate with the vendor to remedy the unsupported 

costs related to deficiencies with the federal travel and Alpha Corp’s travel 

policies. If costs are determined to be unallowable or not adequately 

supported, OJP will request that the vendor return the funds to DOJ. 

On October 31, 2016, OJP provided the OIG with additional documentation 

submitted by Alpha Corp to OJP on May 13, 2016, to address the questioned 

costs we identified as well as its performance under the contract. OJP stated 

this information had not been provided to the OIG earlier due to an oversight 

by OJP. Alpha Corp included in this documentation, as well as in its response 

to the draft report, a spreadsheet and explained that Invoice Number 10, 

which made up $12,802 of the unsupported costs, included documentation to 

support the expenses. We reviewed the spreadsheet. However, no 

additional documentation was provided to support Alpha Corp’s claim that 

Invoice Number 10 supported all of the expenses. In its response to the 

draft report, Alpha Corp stated that these expenses were included with the 

invoice with supporting documentation. On November 3, 2016, Alpha Corp 

provided the additional documentation. Based on our review, Alpha Corp’s 

documentation supported $9,024 of the $12,802 originally questioned from 

Invoice Number 10, but did not support that the remaining $3,778 in 

expenditures were allowable. As a result, we consider $9,024 related to 

Invoice Number 10 adequately remedied. 

This recommendation can be closed when we receive and review evidence 

that the remaining $10,249 in unsupported costs have been remedied. This 

includes OJP’s assessment of the questioned costs with adequate support and 

justification for its conclusions and remedying of any funds. 

111 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

Closed Recommendations: 

5. Ensure any current or future facilities are constructed or renovated in 

a timely fashion, to a size that meets tribal needs that is also within 

the funding availability and intent of the TJSIP program. 

Closed. OJP concurred with the recommendation and provided TJSIP policy 

issued by the BJA Director in May 2016. Should new construction projects be 

considered for funding in future years, the policy states that BJA will: 

	 Require grantees provide a quality needs assessment that is 

research-based, data-driven, and informed by a thorough planning 

process. 

	 Ensure applications include any relevant supporting documentation, 

such as master plan documents, historical data related to use of the 

facility, and data on justice-involved individual populations. 

	 Require that all BJA-funded detention centers are used for the 

purposes consistent with TJSIP grant awards. 

	 Track the useful lives of facilities, and ensure facilities are being used 

consistently with TJSIP grant awards through the real property 

reporting process established by 2 CFR §200.329. 

As it relates to applicants requesting funding to renovate or expand existing 

facilities, BJA stated that it will continue to ensure that the applicant has 

documented the need for the expansion and planned for any new staff 

required as a result of the expansion. 

We reviewed the policy and determined these actions adequately address our 

recommendation. Therefore, this recommendation is closed. 

8. Implement policies that ensure T&TA providers do not contract 

separately to provide services to grantees or, in the rare 

circumstance a contract may be necessary, require prior OJP 

approval before T&TA providers’ contract separately with grantees or 

accept subawards from a grantee’s contractor. 

Closed. OJP concurred with our recommendation. OJP stated in its response 

that it has already implemented the necessary corrective action to address 

this finding. It further stated that COI concerns were addressed in three 

ways including: (1) adding a special condition to T&TA awards beginning in 

FY 2013, (2) developing guidance in the solicitation addressing the COI issue 

in FY 2013, and (3) developing a new special condition for awards starting in 

FY 2016 to make tribal grantees aware of possible COI consequences of 

contracting with T&TA providers. The special condition for T&TA providers 

112 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
 

 

 

requires T&TA providers to obtain prior approval from their grant manager 

for any work with a grantee. 

We reviewed the added special conditions and the solicitation guidance and 

determined these actions adequately address our recommendation. 

Therefore, this recommendation is closed. 

12. Ensure compliance with the FAR when awarding contracts as well as 

throughout the execution of a contract, which includes properly 

documenting changes to the contract, and reviewing invoices to 

ensure costs are allowable and supported. 

Closed. OJP stated that it concurred with our recommendation. OJP stated 

in its response that it has already implemented improvements to its 

contracting process as follows: 

	 OJP’s Office of Administration, Acquisition Management Division (AMD) 

implemented the use of standard modification language to ensure that 

contract changes are properly documented. 

	 Contract actions above the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (currently 

$150,000) are reviewed at the Associate and Deputy Director levels in 

AMD to ensure compliance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation 

(FAR). 

	 Contract actions above the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (currently 

$150,000) are reviewed at the Associate and Deputy Director levels in 

AMD to ensure compliance with the FAR. 

	 OJP implemented a new contract writing system, the Justice Programs 

Acquisition Management System (JPAMS), which allows contract file 

documents to be developed, reviewed, approved, and stored within 

this system. 

	 OJP converted to an electronic contract filing system. All contract file 

documents are electronically stored. 

	 All invoices are submitted for review and approval in JPAMS. 

Contracting Officer’s Representatives (CORs), Contract Specialists 

(CSs), and Contracting Officers (COs) review the invoices to ensure 

costs are allowable and supported with the appropriate documentation. 

We reviewed OJP’s implemented improvements and determined these actions 

adequately address our recommendation. Therefore, this recommendation is 

closed. 

113 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 
   

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 

REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC RELEASE