Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

DHS Financial Assistance to the 

Association of Community Organizations 

for Reform Now (ACORN) and Its 

Affiliates 

OIG-11-10 November 2010 
tt~?(K~J?

Office ofInspector General 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 20528 

NOV 10 2010 Homeland 

Security 

Preface 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office ofInspector General (OIG) was 

established by the Homeland Security Act of2002 (Public Law 107-296) by amendment 

to the Inspector General Act ofI 978. This is one of a series of audit, inspection, and 

special reports prepared as part of our oversight responsibilities to promote economy, 

efficiency, and effectiveness within the department. 

This report was prepared in response to a request from Senator Susan Collins and 

Representative Darrell Issa. It addresses the strengths and weaknesses ofthe Federal 

Emergency Management Agency's Fire Prevention and Safety grant awarded to ACORN 

Institute. It is based on interviews with employees and officials of relevant agencies and 

institutions, direct observations, and a review of applicable documents. 

The recommendations herein have been developed to the best knowledge available to our 

office, and have been discussed in draft with those responsible for implementation. We 

trust this report will result in more effective, efficient, and economical operations. We 

express our appreciation to all of those who contributed to the preparation of this report. 

Anne L. Richards 

Assistant Inspector General for Audits 
Abbreviations 

ACORN Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now 
 


DHS Department of Homeland Security 
 


FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 
 


FY Fiscal Year 
 


OIG Office of Inspector General 
 


Table of Contents/Abbreviations 

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... 1 
 


Background ........................................................................................................................ 2 
 


Results of Audit ................................................................................................................. 3 
 


Award Procedures for the ACORN Institute Fire Prevention and Safety Grants ........ 3 
 


Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 7 
 


Management Comments and OIG Analysis ................................................................ 8 
 


ACORN Institute’s Actions to Implement and Evaluate Its FY 2007 Grant Project .. 9 
 

Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 11 
 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis .............................................................. 11 
 

ACORN Institute’s FY 2007 Grant Expenses ........................................................... 11 
 


Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 12 
 


Management Comments and OIG Analysis .............................................................. 12 
 


Future Grants Activity with ACORN Institute .......................................................... 13 
 


Recommendation ....................................................................................................... 13 
 


Management Comments and OIG Analysis .............................................................. 13 
 


Appendices 

Appendix A: Purpose, Scope, and Methodology ..................................................... 15 
 


Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report ..................................... 17 
 


Appendix C: DHS OIG Response to Congressional Request ................................. 20 
 


Appendix D: DHS OIG Analysis of Technical Evaluation Panel Scores ............... 22 
 


Appendix E: ACORN Institute – FY 2007 Grant Implementation Plan ................. 23 
 


Appendix F: ACORN Institute – FY 2007 Grant Evaluation Plan ......................... 25 
 


Appendix G: Major Contributors to This Report .................................................... 26 
 


Appendix H: Report Distribution ............................................................................ 27 
 

OIG
 
 Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Executive Summary 

In response to a request from Senator Susan Collins and 

Representative Darrell Issa, we audited the appropriateness of 

financial assistance provided by the department to the Association 

of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and its 

affiliates. We identified one $450,484 grant awarded to the 

ACORN Institute under the competitive Fire Prevention and Safety 

Grant Program. The department provided no other financial 

assistance to the Association of Community Organizations for 

Reform Now or its affiliates. 

The fiscal year 2007 grant to ACORN Institute was for a pilot 

program that would develop best practices for community 

organizations to canvass high-risk neighborhoods and distribute 

and install safety equipment, such as smoke detectors or fire 

extinguishers. We concluded that the ACORN Institute should not 

have received these funds, did not fully implement and evaluate 

the program as approved, and could not substantiate all its grant 

expenditures. The Federal Emergency Management Agency did 

not have sufficient oversight processes to prevent the award or to 

fully evaluate the use of the grant money. 

We are making four recommendations aimed at improving the 

selection and oversight processes for the Fire Prevention and 

Safety Grants Program. 

Also, we are recommending that the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency review all of ACORN Institute’s grant 

expenditures, take action to recover any unsubstantiated expenses, 

and determine whether any action is necessary to suspend or debar 

ACORN Institute from receiving future DHS, FEMA, and other 

federal government assistance. The Federal Emergency 

Management Agency concurred with six recommendations, and 

will be assigning staff to review the remaining recommendation. 

The agency’s comments to the draft report are included in 

Appendix B. 

DHS Financial Assistance to the Association of Community 
 


Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) and Its Affiliates
 
 

Page 1
 
 
 

Background 

Through its Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) awards grants to fire 

departments and community organizations to enhance the 

opportunity to protect the public and fire service personnel from 

fire and related hazards. Funds are available under three types of 

grants: Assistance to Firefighters Grants, Staffing for Adequate 

Fire and Emergency Response Grants, and Fire Prevention and 

Safety Grants. 

Fire Prevention and Safety Grants are awarded competitively with 

the goal of targeting high-risk populations to reduce injury and 

prevent death. Since Fiscal Year (FY) 2003, FEMA has awarded 

more than $239 million to more than 2,200 grantees. 

Award Year Total Number of 

Grantees 

Total Award 

Amount 

FY 2003 467 $27,326,316 

FY 2004 532 $35,234,823 

FY 2005 311 $33,766,287 

FY 2006 226 $37,332,763 

FY 2007 216 $34,014,723 

FY 2008 224 $36,394,484 

FY 2009 233 $35,025,327 

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now 

Incorporated (ACORN Inc.) is a nonprofit community organization 

founded in 1970. ACORN Inc. has organized low- to moderateincome citizens as advocates for their communities, and is mainly 

involved with projects related to discrimination, affordable 

housing, quality education, and better public services. Hundreds of 

affiliates, such as the ACORN Institute, use the ACORN brand. 

After suspicions arose that ACORN Inc. was involved in 

fraudulent activities, the U.S. Senate voted on September 15, 2009, 

to discontinue funding from the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development to ACORN Inc. Additional actions to sever ACORN 

Inc.’s association with the federal government came on 

September 11, 2009, when the Census Bureau barred ACORN Inc. 

from assisting with the 2010 Census; September 15, 2009, when 

the U.S. House of Representatives voted to discontinue any 

funding for ACORN Inc.; and September 23, 2009, when the 

Internal Revenue Service removed ACORN Inc. from its volunteer 

DHS Financial Assistance to the Association of Community
 

Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) and Its Affiliates
 

Page 2
 
 

tax assistance program. As of April 1, 2010, ACORN Inc. 

reported that it will close its offices across the United States. 

ACORN Institute was founded in 2000 and is a 501(c)(3) 

community organization headquartered in New Orleans, LA. This 

organization was created to advocate for economic and social 

improvements for low- to moderate-income individuals through 

research and training to combat poverty, discrimination, and 

community deterioration in low-income areas. 

Appendix A provides additional details on the purpose, scope, and 

methodology of this audit. Answers to specific questions from 

Senator Collins and Representative Issa are in Appendix C. 

Results of Audit 

Award Procedures for the ACORN Institute Fire Prevention and 

Safety Grants 

FEMA’s Fire Prevention and Safety Grants are intended for fire 

departments and community organizations recognized for their experience 

and expertise in fire prevention and safety. ACORN Institute, a 

community organization, applied to this grant program in FY 2007 and 

FY 2008 and was awarded grants in both fiscal periods. However, given 

the lack of experience ACORN Institute demonstrated in fire prevention 

and safety and its unconfirmed collaboration with experts in this area, 

FEMA should not have awarded these grants to ACORN Institute. FEMA 

relied on the integrity of this applicant to self-certify that the information 

in its grant application was accurate, and as is FEMA’s general practice, 

did not perform any checks of the information provided. As a result, 

FEMA was unaware that ACORN Institute was not involved in the 

activities it used to support its experience, or that all of the partnerships 

ACORN Institute claimed to have were not in place. 

The Technical Evaluation Panel that reviewed ACORN Institute’s FY 

2007 Fire Prevention and Safety Grant application recommended it not be 

funded. After reviewing the FY 2008 application, the Technical 

Evaluation Panel recommended that ACORN Institute be awarded the 

grant only if certain conditions were met. For both fiscal periods, FEMA 

overrode the panel’s recommendations and awarded the grants to ACORN 

Institute without documenting how the Technical Evaluation Panel’s 

concerns would be addressed or providing the basis for its decision to 

award these grants. 

DHS Financial Assistance to the Association of Community
 
 

Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) and Its Affiliates
 
 

Page 3
 
 
 

 

ACORN Institute Experience in Fire Prevention and Safety 

In its FY 2007 grant application, ACORN Institute attributed its 

experience in fire prevention and safety to the Urban Fire 

Initiative, described as a partnership between ACORN Institute 

and local fire departments. ACORN Institute claimed that the 

Urban Fire Initiative had been involved with several projects and 

credited the initiative with the following: 

3⁄4	 	Developing and implementing a successful FEMA-funded fire 

prevention program in Madison County, NC, where it worked 

with the local fire department. 

3⁄4	 	Gutting more than 3,000 homes in New Orleans to remove 
 

debris and hazardous materials following Hurricane Katrina. 
 

3⁄4	 	Assisting the City of Berkeley, CA, fire department in a 

FEMA-funded program to design and implement a protocol for 

a fire prevention program. 

3⁄4	 	Designing and developing programs to educate hundreds of 
 

daycare providers about fire prevention. 
 

3⁄4	 	Sponsoring community meetings on fire safety in coordination 

with local firefighters and officials. 

Discussions with the executive director for ACORN Institute and 

the principals for a consulting firm ACORN Institute hired to work 

on the project revealed that the Urban Fire Initiative did not exist 

prior to the grant application, but was created specifically for 

activities funded by the FY 2007 Fire Prevention and Safety Grant. 

Neither ACORN Institute nor the Urban Fire Initiative was 

involved in any of the above activities and events. No other 

evidence was available to show that ACORN Institute had been 

involved in any fire prevention and safety activities or had 

experience in this area. 

ACORN Institute Collaboration With Local Fire Departments 

When considering applicants for its Fire Prevention and Safety 

Grants, FEMA gives priority to organizations that incorporate 

partners with expertise in fire prevention and safety into its project. 

Partnerships are seen as an opportunity to enhance the 

development, delivery, success, and completion of projects. 

DHS Financial Assistance to the Association of Community
 

Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) and Its Affiliates
 

Page 4
 
 

 

 

 

ACORN Institute claimed in its FY 2007 grant application that it 

had existing partnerships with local fire departments in the cities 

where it would pilot its proposed project. However, there was no 

evidence that these partnerships were in place at the time the 

application was submitted. 

According to ACORN Institute’s Final Grant Report1

 and the Time 

and Effort sheets prepared by its staff, these partnerships were not 

in place in every city during the grant performance period. In the 

Final Grant Report, ACORN Institute detailed how fire 

departments in two of five pilot cities did not cooperate and 

participate in the project. Further, in their Time and Effort sheets, 

the Urban Fire Initiative staff documented the challenges and 

difficulties that the ACORN Institute experienced in finding 

partners among local fire departments. Despite the claims in its 

grant application, the ACORN Institute did not have partners in all 

the pilot cities, which limited the expertise and experience 

available to run this program in those cities. 

FEMA Reliance on Claims Made in Grant Applications 

FEMA used information from ACORN Institute’s application to 

qualify it for the grant. The only assurance FEMA had for the 

legitimacy of claims ACORN Institute made about its experience 

and partners was self-certification of the applicant. FEMA has no 

requirement or standard procedure in the evaluation process of the 

Fire Prevention and Safety grant applications to validate the 

legitimacy of significant claims and assertions used to qualify an 

applicant for the grant. FEMA based the eligibility of its 

applicants solely on unverified claims they made in their grant 

applications. 

Before grant applications are accepted into FEMA’s electronic 

system, applicants are required to certify that the information in 

their submission is accurate by checking a box. However, 

evidence that applicants actually checked this box is not captured 

in, or retrievable from, the system. The certification process would 

be more effective if such a warning were included in the Assurance 

and Certification Section of the application and captured within the 

system. 

1 	 At the time of our audit, the Final Grant Report was in draft form and had not been submitted to FEMA 

for review. 

DHS Financial Assistance to the Association of Community
 
 

Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) and Its Affiliates
 
 

Page 5
 
 
 

FEMA’s Decision to Override the Technical Evaluation 
 

Panel’s Recommendation 
 

Every eligible application submitted for the Fire Prevention and 

Safety Grant is evaluated by a Technical Evaluation Panel. The 

panel consists of a group of fire service experts who score each 

project based on its merits or shortcomings. FEMA makes the 

final decision to award grants to applicants based on how the 

Technical Evaluation Panel ranks the project and the impact the 

proposed activities would have on the safety of the target audience. 

When the Technical Evaluation Panel reviewed ACORN 

Institute’s FY 2007 application, it recommended that the 

application not be funded. However, FEMA overrode the panel’s 

recommendation and awarded the grant without documenting how 

it addressed the Technical Evaluation Panel’s concerns. The 

Technical Evaluation Panel was concerned about the proposed 

project’s effectiveness, and made comments such as the following: 

3⁄4	 	“The program appears to rely on grant funding for 
 

sustainability.” 
 

3⁄4	 	“The costs for Personnel and Equipment are high compared to 

only a small portion for Safety Equipment.” 

3⁄4	 	“I am concerned about the organization’s answer of ‘yes’ to 
 

receiving federal funding from another program.” 
 

3⁄4	 	“Should non-fire personnel conduct safety assessments?” 

FEMA reduced ACORN Institute’s initial request of $1 million to 

$450,484, and noted that ACORN Institute was awarded the 

FY 2007 grant because the proposal was a “concentrated effort for 

prevention in high risk communities.” 

To put in perspective how this proposal compared to other 

community organizations’ proposals, we selected a random sample 

of 30 community organizations for review (see Appendix D). Five 

of the 30 organizations that proposed similar smoke alarm 

campaigns in high-risk areas received higher scores than ACORN 

Institute from the Technical Evaluation Panel. However, only one 

of these five organizations received an award (for $384,800). 

Despite the fact that the other four organizations received higher 

scores, there was no documented justification why ACORN 

DHS Financial Assistance to the Association of Community
 

Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) and Its Affiliates
 

Page 6
 
 

Institute was selected for this competitive grant over these other 

organizations. 

In its review of the FY 2008 applications, the Technical Evaluation 

Panel again expressed concerns about ACORN Institute’s request 

for funds and withheld a recommendation to fund until certain 

conditions were met. The Technical Evaluation Panel was 

concerned with the lack of information on the ACORN Institute’s 

FY 2007 performance and outcomes. The panel expected FEMA 

to address certain conditions before approving the grant, including 

a reduction in the grant amount and revised measurements for the 

grantee’s evaluation plan. FEMA again overrode the Technical 

Evaluation Panel’s recommendation and approved the grant 

without documenting how the panel’s concerns would be 

addressed. 

FEMA has no guidelines or policies that require staff to document 

the basis of decisions to award grants that are contrary to Technical 

Evaluation Panel recommendations, or how the panel’s concerns 

are to be addressed. Such guidelines would minimize the risk of 

criticism over the selection process and provide some assurance 

that selections met the criteria for a competitive grant. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs 

Directorate: 

Recommendation #1: Implement procedures to confirm the 

accuracy of significant assertions used as the basis for determining 

grant applicants’ eligibility. 

Recommendation #2: Revise the Assurance and Certification 

section of the grant application to document and retain evidence 

that applicants acknowledge and certify that they understand the 

consequences and penalties for including inaccurate information in 

their applications. 

Recommendation #3: Establish policies and procedures that 

require staff to document justifications to override substantive 

concerns and recommendations made by the Technical Evaluation 

Panel. 

DHS Financial Assistance to the Association of Community
 
 

Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) and Its Affiliates
 
 

Page 7
 
 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

FEMA’s Comments to Recommendation #1: FEMA concurred 

with incorporating additional language to the assurance page to 

comply with this recommendation by using the methodology 

discussed in Recommendation #2. FEMA stated it cannot perform 

a complete review of all assertions within an application and also 

award 5,000 grants yearly. Assertions made in the application will 

be reviewed through FEMA’s grant monitoring tools and, if 

necessary, any and all grants will be canceled if it is determined 

that the applicant has misrepresented information provided on the 

application. 

OIG Analysis: The steps FEMA plans to take satisfy the intent of 

this recommendation. However, since a timeframe for 

implementing these steps has not been established, this 

recommendation is unresolved, and will remain open until FEMA 

provides documentation that shows corrective actions have been 

completed. 

FEMA’s Comments to Recommendation #2: FEMA concurred 

with this recommendation and agreed to work with the FEMA 

Office of Chief Counsel to review the Assurance and Certification 

section of the grant application to document and retain evidence 

that applicants acknowledge and certify that they understand the 

consequences and penalties for including inaccurate information in 

their applications. 

OIG Analysis: The steps FEMA plans to take satisfy the intent of 

this recommendation. However, since a timeframe for 

implementing these steps has not been established, this 

recommendation is unresolved, and will remain open until FEMA 

provides documentation that shows corrective actions have been 

completed. 

FEMA’s Comments to Recommendation #3: FEMA concurred 

with this recommendation and agreed to revise policies and 

procedures that require staff to document justifications to override 

substantive concerns and recommendations by the Technical 

Evaluation Panel. The revised policies will be in place within 

60 days of FEMA’s response. According to FEMA, the 

justifications were documented in the past; however, the new 

policy and procedures will assist with ensuring the justifications in 

the future are more fulsome and clear. 

DHS Financial Assistance to the Association of Community
 
 

Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) and Its Affiliates
 
 

Page 8
 
 

OIG Analysis: The steps FEMA plans to take satisfy the intent of 

this recommendation. This recommendation is resolved, but will 

remain open until FEMA provides documentation that shows 

corrective actions have been completed. 

ACORN Institute’s Actions to Implement and Evaluate Its 

FY 2007 Grant Project 

ACORN Institute was awarded the FY 2007 Fire Prevention and Safety 

Grant to run a pilot program that would develop best practices for 

community organizations to canvass high-risk neighborhoods and 

distribute and install safety equipment, such as smoke detectors and fire 

extinguishers. As required by the terms of the grant, ACORN Institute 

was to implement and evaluate the project as proposed in its approved 

application. However, ACORN Institute did not perform tasks for two 

activities as proposed, and did not obtain approval from FEMA to deviate 

from the plan. In addition, ACORN Institute committed to reporting on 

seven project goals to measure the progress and effectiveness of the pilot 

program but did not report on two of the seven goals. Since this grant was 

not selected for an oversight visit, FEMA was not aware that ACORN 

Institute was not fully implementing and evaluating the project as it was 

approved. 

ACORN Institute Project Implementation 

The terms and conditions of the FY 2007 Fire Prevention and 

Safety Grant required ACORN Institute to use the grant funds to 

conduct activities described in the narrative of its approved grant 

application (see Appendix E). Two of the five activities ACORN 

Institute was expected to complete were to (1) recruit community 

volunteers who would be trained by the local fire departments, and 

(2) design and implement a program to generate requests for inhome audits, which would be conducted by the trained volunteers 

and local fire departments. 

Both activities involved volunteers who would be trained by the 

local fire departments. However, this training never took place. 

The only evidence that some sort of training did occur were the 

training sessions for ACORN Institute’s Urban Fire Initiative staff, 

conducted by a consulting firm ACORN Institute hired to work on 

this project. Also, it was the Urban Fire Initiative staff that 

performed the in-home audits, which was a deviation from the plan 

to include the local fire departments in these inspections. FEMA 

did not approve these changes. 

DHS Financial Assistance to the Association of Community
 

Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) and Its Affiliates
 

Page 9
 
 

ACORN Institute Reporting 

ACORN Institute was also required to capture the results of seven 

specific goals to evaluate the progress and effectiveness of the 

project (see Appendix F). ACORN Institute did not report 

activities for two of the goals and could not explain why this 

information was not available. One of the goals required that data 

be compiled on the number of requests for in-home fire safety 

audits. The other goal was to document the number of participants 

present at fire safety demonstrations during community events. 

FEMA Monitoring of Grantee 

FEMA generally focuses its financial and programmatic oversight 

on recipients of large grants rather than using a risk analysis to 

identify necessary oversight. Some of FEMA’s additional 

considerations in its selection process include the following: 

3⁄4	 	Geographical location to ensure all regions throughout the 
 

United States receive coverage; 
 

3⁄4	 	Complaints about grantees; and 

3⁄4	 	The Wagon-Wheel-Approach: grantees are selected for an 

audit if they are located in the vicinity of another grantee being 

audited. 

FEMA did not select ACORN Institute’s FY 2007 grant to be 

monitored. FEMA’s selection process does not consider sufficient 

indicators of potential problems or high risk. For example, 

ACORN Institute’s inexperience in the program and the concerns 

the Technical Evaluation Panel expressed when evaluating the 

FY 2007 Fire Prevention and Safety grant application are 

indicators of potential issues, but FEMA did not consider them in 

its selection process. Using indicators of risk as part of its 

selection process would help FEMA to identify and correct issues 

that may arise. 

According to FEMA officials, FEMA has moved to a risk-based 

protocol in selecting the grants it will monitor. This protocol will 

enable FEMA to concentrate its efforts and resources in providing 

the appropriate level of oversight based on the assessed risk levels 

of grants. DHS OIG will evaluate the adequacy of FEMA’s new 

risk-based protocol at a later date. 

DHS Financial Assistance to the Association of Community
 

Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) and Its Affiliates
 

Page 10
 
 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs 

Directorate: 

Recommendation #4: Incorporate key factors or indicators, such 

as the grantees’ experience with the program and known concerns 

about the grantee, in FEMA’s risk-based approach to select 

grantees for inclusion in its monitoring plan. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

FEMA’s Comments to Recommendation #4: FEMA concurred 

with this recommendation and agreed to incorporate key factors 

and indicators, such as grantees’ experience with the program and 

known concerns about the grantee, in FEMA’s risk-based approach 

to select grantees for inclusion in its monitoring plan. 

OIG Analysis: The steps FEMA plans to take satisfy the intent of 

this recommendation. However, since a timeframe for 

implementing these steps has not been established, this 

recommendation is unresolved, and will remain open until FEMA 

provides documentation that shows corrective actions have been 

completed. 

ACORN Institute’s FY 2007 Grant Expenses 

ACORN Institute received $450,484 from the FY 2007 Fire Prevention 

and Safety Grant. However, ACORN Institute does not have 

documentation to support how it spent $160,797 of the grant funds. 

Office of Budget and Management Circular A-110 requires federal grant 

recipients to maintain records of their grant expenditures. ACORN 

Institute recorded only $449,721 of its expenses in a general ledger used to 

track expenditures for the FY 2007 grant—$763 short of the $450,484 

amount it received. OIG selected $338,675 of the recorded expenses to 

review and received documentation from ACORN Institute, such as 

canceled checks, invoices, employee timesheets, and bank statements, to 

support only $178,641 of this amount. Therefore, $160,034 of the funds 

we selected for review were unsupported. 

To ensure that ACORN Institute did not misuse the grant funds, a 

thorough review of the grant expenses, along with the $111,046 of grant 

funds OIG did not select for review, is needed. After the completion of 

our fieldwork, we were advised by the ACORN Institute that additional 

DHS Financial Assistance to the Association of Community
 

Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) and Its Affiliates
 

Page 11
 
 

documentation supporting expenditures was identified by the ACORN 

Institute. FEMA should consider this additional documentation in its 

review for allowability and appropriateness of expenditures. Should 

FEMA determine that ACORN Institute inappropriately spent funds from 

this grant, action must be taken to recover the unsubstantiated amount. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs 

Directorate: 

Recommendation #5: Require ACORN Institute to return 

$160,797 in unsubstantiated grant expenses, 

Recommendation #6: Review documentation for the remaining 

$111,046 of grant funds, and if unsupported by appropriate 

expenses that can be documented, require ACORN Institute to 

return the funds. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

FEMA’s Comments to Recommendation #5: FEMA could not 

make the determination to concur or non-concur without a 

thorough review of the documentation from the OIG site visit. 

FEMA will request the necessary documentation for the 

unsubstantiated grant expenses from the ACORN Institute. A team 

of specialists within FEMA will review the material, and if the 

grantee cannot provide additional supporting justification for the 

expenses, FEMA will request the funds be returned. 

OIG Analysis: The steps FEMA plans to take satisfy the intent of 

this recommendation. OIG will provide FEMA a report on grant 

expenses ACORN Institute could not support with adequate 

documentation. Since a timeframe for implementing these steps 

has not been established, this recommendation is unresolved, and 

will remain open until FEMA provides documentation that shows 

corrective actions have been completed. 

FEMA’s Comments to Recommendation #6: FEMA concurred 

with this recommendation. FEMA will request the necessary 

documentation for the remaining grants expenditures from the 

ACORN Institute. A team of specialists within FEMA will review 

the materials, and if the grantee cannot provide additional 

supporting justification for the expenses, FEMA will request the 

funds be returned. 

DHS Financial Assistance to the Association of Community
 
 

Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) and Its Affiliates
 
 

Page 12
 
 

OIG Analysis: The steps FEMA plans to take satisfy the intent of 

this recommendation. OIG will provide FEMA a report on grant 

expenses in ACORN Institute’s accounting records not selected for 

review. Since a timeframe for implementing these steps has not 

been established, this recommendation is unresolved, and will 

remain open until FEMA provides documentation that shows 

corrective actions have been completed. 

Future Grants Activity with ACORN Institute 

We identified serious issues with ACORN Institute’s application, 

execution, and reporting for the Fire Prevention and Safety grant. The 

ACORN Institute did not have the experience in fire prevention and safety 

activities as stated in its grant application, and did not have partnerships 

with local fire departments in place at the time of its application. ACORN 

Institute did not fully implement and evaluate the program as approved, 

and did not obtain approval from FEMA to deviate from the plan. It did 

not perform tasks for two activities as proposed, specifically, it did not 

provide training to volunteers by local fire departments, and performed inhome audits using Urban Fire Initiative staff instead of local fire 

departments. In addition, the ACORN Institute could not substantiate 

$160,034 of grant expenditures we selected for review. 

Based on these deficiencies in applying for, executing, and supporting 

expenses for the grant, FEMA should evaluate the appropriateness of 

ACORN Institute’s eligibility to receive future grants from FEMA. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs 

Directorate: 

Recommendation #7: Upon completion of a review of all 

ACORN Institute expenses to determine eligibility and 

supportability, and assessing ACORN Institute’s actions regarding 

its application for and execution of the grant, determine whether 

any action is necessary to suspend or debar ACORN Institute from 

receiving future DHS, FEMA, and other federal government 

assistance. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

FEMA’s Comments to Recommendation #7: FEMA concurred 

with the recommendation and will review the final report and 

DHS Financial Assistance to the Association of Community
 

Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) and Its Affiliates
 

Page 13
 
 

supporting documentation provided by OIG and the ACORN 

Institute to assess the merit of suspension and/or debarment if 

funds were inappropriately used. 

OIG Analysis: The steps FEMA plans to take satisfy the intent of 

this recommendation. However, since a timeframe for 

implementing these steps has not been established, this 

recommendation is unresolved, and will remain open until FEMA 

provides documentation that shows corrective actions have been 

completed. 

DHS Financial Assistance to the Association of Community
 
 

Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) and Its Affiliates
 
 

Page 14
 
 
Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

In a letter to the DHS Inspector General, Senator Susan Collins and 

Representative Darrell Issa expressed concerns about ACORN and 

its affiliates, and requested that DHS OIG conduct an investigation 

to address the following issues: 

1.	 How ACORN Institute could be considered for a Fire 

Prevention and Safety grant. 

2.	 Whether DHS awarded any grants, contracts, entitlements 

and other forms of assistance to ACORN and its affiliates. 

3.	 Whether DHS has appropriate oversight mechanisms and 

plans in place for all grants, contracts, entitlements, and 

assistance (including funds from the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009) provided to ACORN and its 

affiliates. 

4.	 Whether ACORN and its affiliates used the DHS funds they 

received in accordance with the legislation and terms of the 

grant, contract, entitlement, or other form of assistance. 

5.	 Whether DHS conducted an audit of how ACORN spent 

the FY 2007 funds and whether this audit was used to 

justify the FY 2008 award. (If not, DHS OIG was asked to 

conduct an audit.) 

To address the issues expressed by Senator Collins and 
 

Representative Issa, we reviewed applicable federal laws and 
 

regulations, as well as DHS and FEMA policies and procedures. 
 

Our audit plan included the following procedures: 
 

3⁄4	 	Compiled a list of 542 ACORN affiliates based on the 

following sources: 

1. 	Congressional Request Letter to DHS OIG 

2.	 U.S. Representative Darrell Issa’s report, “Is ACORN 

Intentionally Structured as a Criminal Enterprise?” 

from the Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform dated July 20, 2009 

3. 	United States Election Assistance Commission OIG 

4. 	ACORN Institute’s Legal Counsel 

DHS Financial Assistance to the Association of Community 
 

Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) and its Affiliates
 

Page 15
 
 

Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

3⁄4	 	Worked with DHS components to identify financial 

assistance provided to ACORN and its affiliates from 

FY 2003 to March 2010. Each DHS component was given 

the list of 542 possible ACORN affiliates and asked to run 

queries in its accounting systems to identify disbursements 

made to these entities. 

3⁄4	 	Visited ACORN Institute’s headquarters in New Orleans, 

LA, to obtain information on how the program was 

implemented and evaluated; and reviewed documentation 

to support expenses paid by the grant. Using ACORN 

Institute’s general ledger, we judgmentally selected 

$338,675 of grant expenditures to review. 

3⁄4	 	Interviewed and obtained information from FEMA officials 

and staff on the process used to evaluate and award the Fire 

Prevention and Safety grants to ACORN Institute, and 

FEMA’s efforts to monitor the FY 2007 Fire Prevention 

and Safety grant awarded to ACORN Institute. 

3⁄4	 	Interviewed an ACORN Institute consultant, which was 

contracted to prepare the grant application and provide 

other services for this grant project. 

3⁄4	 	Randomly selected 30 of 421 community organizations that 

applied for the Fire Prevention and Safety grant in FY 2007 

and analyzed the Technical Evaluation Panel’s 

recommendation for each applicant. See Appendix D for a 

summary of the sample. 

We conducted our audit between November 2009 and April 2010 

under the authority of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 

amended, and according to 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. 

DHS Financial Assistance to the Association of Community
 
 

Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) and its Affiliates
 
 

Page 16
 
 
l''>'''''''''''''~~_'"''''''

"''' W,",,,,.,, >,.' "'." >~. "

,Ii: FEMA

,v....c L. Ricr.aJo,

A"j,,,"~ 1<.'f'OCOO' Ucr>ct,1

orr", <\fh~p<"'~ Geo"..'

FJ(O~\; o.";;.lI.K;,""",tp(-__-.-

I:'.",""r

Off" <\1 Puliey ,,,,I Pro!7"m ~r."h~,

SUIlJEC'T- (0=.,",," on OlG D",'I R'1"'~" TJIrs ","m",'cI A."'-'.c",",,

10 ,i.,.-1"''''.'O!io" ~r (omMr'.'(:I 01»""""''';00'for Refor!"

,Vuw (.1CORSj ",..d it> /lt~ii"",

Th,,", YO" ii"ll", O"r.,rt'·T."y to ,,,,,,<w "',j "'",".m ""., "" n".' O"'e,. of1" 'J'<"""

Gee"",I', (010',) ""'jec' "CO" =M ''1''". A, th' reMell fm"'t"'""Y M'ro~""t

"'~"-OY (F(\fA) ~""l., ,,,w,ml "'inin!< i" rmc~<"'. 'ho OIG', ;"'lep<n'l'o' ","l)'~' d'

p"'U"'''' ~f""",n,ct:=/l" """'Ii" ,." ""li'y ~' o.-liru"d" impn>;'o ,.~ rod"i'i"

H\IA ""O"" wi,t. ,i, "f'ho ,~,,'l ''T''"'' '""'" "",,""'·"",,'....i,... ,,,<I b" who

""',,"'" 'n imp:"'''''''' I!><TI, r,,, R"""n""c,'";",, ;;1. w, ca" ,,<ilher "",,,,,,, "'.. ",>n_

"',"'ou, "' ,J... r""'~"'" Li~" ",,';1 ~"hd," """, 'h" 'H"'j""" ",,,..,,,,,,,>I<Ii,,,. WI,il< we

"in be poo"dj"g 00''''''';''< ><",," pi.,.., ;n ow 9O-d.,. "",Xl...,. ~.< pro,;"" u'"

t,,!lo',i"~ i"jOr=,io~,ehhe to ,he "'....'" 'e<omm<odJ.t,oru'

R"om"",.oI.Hm ~1' hrr' on",'" pm"""""" ,,, ",m;i"" 'h, """"'''y '-"<" ," of,i[,""fi'",,'

.....,""i,,,,., ,h,~, b <1"",-"",,inin~ ~;'" 'Pr'·."""'" ,li['ibi'i')'

FEMAII... po..... FnU .........un ..i.hrlJin~OOdh.o...iw:WJ.ge '" tl" "'U.C)Jl~'

iXlge 10 "".l'lply ·.,i,h ttu, roconur_or<1"lOn oy '''';['1/ til< n>ctl".OC<lJc.y d;"'\l=d io

KiIOOmm<oo..ti0n n rEM.., "ru"t p'rtorrn , ",,,,pi,,, ",jew ~hll .'-;0'"

"", vdh,n.~pI,,"i<Jn >r.d ,bo ,,,..,,,d H<J(i "'''".''' y,arly. Hat he;n.~ "";(\, ."""i",,, ".,,,10;"

,b<; "IV:>;'~oo will b< ",i<wC(l t!lroOi-' FBlA', "',,"ll LllOflJtO;~ '001..,>0. j!

"",,,,,,r,'-, ".j' ood ,tI\Y'llU wiil b< "",,,--\cd il it i, dctCtm,,,,--o t'." ,he ep~j,CUl' 1;0.,

mi ""l"">,,-.,,,,,I in I""""t,0" pro,i doo or, ,oc .1'1'1'000:;"<1

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

DHS Financial Assistance to the Association of Community 
 


Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) and its Affiliates
 
 

Page 17
 
 
 

_omlll,,,d...lo. #2: R....'..t" A",...,.... =l Cortif>c.tioo .octioo of,.. gratlt

W.,..i,,,, '" <1",""""" .. ""'""'l"'""'" xl re";n

..

<vi"""'" U».' ""ph,,,,,,, oclno"lo>Jge a>'I<1 c",Ml' ,1.",-

Li"')' un<Ie.>""..J the xl p"'».lti" fo< i,ocludi"g ;,\OCC\l....to ,,,I,,,,,,.",,,, in

th<i' W.,..iOO'

FE~IA R.,_,.: FEJ.iA """"'-"" with lhi, """""m<oo.n"" .n<! 'w<"" 10 w""k "ilh

the FE),1... Offie, ofCiJidC''<'IJl!,11o =i"" ,J.,: ,\.,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and C",<\ilicolioo "":'"n of

tbo wmt "!'plio.tion k> d""""""1 on<! ",10m <vi<l<n<o llio.t.w;c>n" ltCloowl<l<l!« on<!

corti!)' 1:liat tl>o)' umerrlund tho OOn>oqU""''''' onJ _.In"" for induding in""""",,to

illf'ormlttioo in tbcir _li""lioll',

_o""""o""tlom 1I3: E",.b1i,~ polk;'" und ProcOO'~'" thot roq\.", ,t.ffto document

jnsti/icatioo. to ovmide ""b"llTItivo rona:m, Illld r=mmmd.tiom IlUdo 1»' tho

T",hn1U>1 E",h><>':ioo Poael

FE:\IA R.,p...., FE)'\'\' """""" "itb lhi' "'ct<IlmeOOotioo and oS"'", to "",",e

poIici", ond prc><><:d<~", thot ""uir.,..Iflo ,\<>L"ment ju,titi<IoIioo' to """",(\<:

,"b,"",ti"" OOlle= ond roooIIUll<nd,t~", .. by til< ToclJ.ni",1 Fv..""tioo P"""'. Th<

",vi..d pelie'" will be ill plocc within 60 mol" oftb< &'" ofthi. 1cttCf, Th<

jn<tjficatioo. W<r< documon,ed iIllh. P''''; ho",,,,,,,,, tho new policy on<! pmeedur.. mil

..,,;,.. w1tlL o"""",ng lhe jlJl!tiflCalKtill 1n the fixur< oro moro fu]'ome .nd do""

_""","d...;o.. #4: It"""l>o",-t" key f"",rs 01' ;!ldic.to<" '1lclI '" rhe !\"'-fit".,'

ex]J<'ri""" ,,'ith the pmgr_ >nd ]moll'" <:oo<:<m, """ut the W>nl«, in rEM'\",

11''''''.''" ~<k_'-"d oPrm"ch L" _'" I,", .>dUo,i"" i" ;!< moo"""io; p1",.

FE~IA R..pu=.., FD!"'- c,""".'" "it/llbi' "",,""""">do.ti"" and oS"'"" «I ","'ti,,.,. 'be

IDl<I;IcriIl~ olforto ""d incrn:p<>r"" '<y lOCI"", <'OIl''''''' ()< ;",heo-trn, '''''h OS 'h< gronte"'"

ox]J<'ri,oco with tho jIfOll'''''' ond lmoWJ1 oOOut tho 1>'..0:" in !'EM"'-', riolb"'ed .ppmoch to ,eke< Il'""tc", fa< iocl"""" ill it> moni'oringpl..,.

RecomlllOllclatl..lI5: Rc""ir< ACORN 1u.lt""tc to rchrn 1160,797 in ulJl!ub,loocilltcd

iL'_ <Xp<"'''

n'lA "iL_.Re'ponl<: FEJ.iA connol mol.:" tho d<term;n>lloo to 000= "" ,",n""OOCllf

t\lo<OUl;h , ...."'''' ofthe <l<>ou""",""" Ii"<>m the OIG ,ii, "i,it. FEMA ",ill

<<<)U<:3t the n,,,,,,,,.,y U<",oxn=l>-t;on fo< '"" "_l>-nti."xll>'oo( e,P'="" from lho

ACOR."I ""tiM", A t= "fS~oli.t>",ithill FEMA .,'ill review lhe ""'<:riol" 1ft!>::

1;'

"'I'"''

__ ccrmQt p<"";(\<: O<IJitio".l '"f'l""'lill!,i""ifio;,""" ~"th' ""1'''''''''-', FEMA "ill

the fund< be ",,",,10".

Appendix B 

DHS OIG Response to Congressional Request 

DHS Financial Assistance to the Association of Community
 
 

Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) and its Affiliates
 
 

Page 18
 
 
 

Page.1

R.ooon_o<blliooo f6: RO'Ijew documenuti.:J, fur tl" UIIl.iDllll: ~ll \,046 of ~t

fun<!", wnd if "",uWOrtrd '1 '!'Propri.te "'pel"''' dI>t COll be documeoced, ""[ui",

ACCIIlJ' lrntit"te to «I"" <he tiAtd.

FlMA R••,"..., FE\l,o. ooncut",ith tlli.< "",,,,,,,,,eMatl,,,,. FEMA will ""lue<t the

IIC'''''''y tk>cumooloOO, lox !he """,""'OS grO<>(> "'p"odit"'", fro", tbe ACORN

In.1titutc, A to= ofSl""'ioli.t> ",'itbin HM,o. .,ill rev;"w 'be ","''''.J•. In.., gr"<'>te,

,,,,,,,,", provide :tdditimull """portir,~ju>tifio.ti", !c< too o'pc"'''', HMA will "",.",,,1

til< fuld, t:.o retum,d.

11"'00""'0<1."10. i'"" '17: Detrrmioe wh«hor oct"", ;, oeca..ry to l113pend debar

,o.COR"I =i,!;>",,,In.. r,,,,,, "",,,,v;,,s fu:uro DHS. FEMA, and other fodenl iL<'".,.,.",tl[

FE~IA R••,"..., Fl1\l,o. 00<"£"" witb ,11< ,oo"",_t;"" and w;ll f'O'Ii",,. th, final

rq>J<t ",J .upportin~ '""'ym"'..... '" l"'wiu«1 by OK] .n<! U", ,o.OJRN 1n.<1i<"'. 'u

"'50'" the morit of "-"'P""';'" ,."J/m~'if [",,1, w= i""pl"',pri.Ldy """d.

UIIIlk)'Oll ~in for the ",,~ity 10 """""""\ "" thi. droJi "'I""t.n<! wo kd forw....J

to w[)(Jdn~ wit~ )'Oll "" oth" i"""" .. we both ,triY< to iml>"';'o FEMA,

Appendix B 

DHS OIG Response to Congressional Request 

DHS Financial Assistance to the Association of Community
 
 

Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) and its Affiliates
 
 

Page 19
 
 
Appendix C 

DHS OIG Response to Congressional Requests 

1. How could ACORN Institute be considered for a Fire Prevention and Safety 

grant? 

Community organizations recognized for their experience and expertise in fire prevention 

and safety are eligible to apply for the Fire Prevention and Safety Grant. ACORN 

Institute, a community organization, applied for this grant in FY 2007 and FY 2008 and 

received awards for both fiscal periods. However, ACORN Institute did not have 

experience in fire prevention and safety and did not have partners with expertise in this 

area in every city it planned to pilot this project. ACORN Institute did not meet the 

eligibility requirements for this grant and should not have received these awards. 

Further, the Technical Evaluation Panel that reviewed the Fire Prevention and Safety 

Grant applications recommended that ACORN Institute’s FY 2007 request not be funded. 

After reviewing the FY 2008 application, the Technical Evaluation Panel recommended 

that ACORN Institute be awarded the grant only if certain conditions were met. For both 

fiscal periods, DHS, through FEMA, overrode the recommendations and awarded the 

grants to ACORN Institute without documenting how it addressed the Technical 

Evaluation Panel’s concerns and the basis for its decision to award the grants to ACORN 

Institute. 

2. What DHS grants, contracts, entitlements, and other forms of assistance were 

awarded to ACORN and its affiliates? 

In FY 2007 DHS, through FEMA, awarded and disbursed $450,484 to ACORN Institute 

for a Fire Prevention and Safety Grant. ACORN Institute was awarded another $997,402 

grant under this program in FY 2008; however, after Congress denied funding to 

ACORN and its affiliates, the FY 2008 award was rescinded and the funds were never 

disbursed. Other than the two awards to ACORN Institute under the Fire Prevention and 

Safety Program, DHS did not award any other financial assistance to ACORN or its 

affiliates. 

3. Does DHS have the appropriate oversight mechanisms and plans in place for all 

grants, contracts, entitlements, and assistance (including funds from the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) provided to ACORN and its affiliates? 

For the Fire Prevention and Safety Grant Program, DHS, through FEMA, did not identify 

potential issues that the ACORN Institute could have with its FY 2007 grant, and 

therefore did not select it for an oversight review. As a result, FEMA was unaware that 

ACORN Institute had not fully implemented or evaluated its grant project and did not 

have documentation to substantiate $160,797 of expenses funded by this grant. FEMA 

has since implemented a risk-based approach to identify and concentrate its efforts and 

resources on grantees based on the assessed risk. OIG will evaluate the adequacy of 

FEMA’s new risk-based oversight and monitoring plan at a later date. 

DHS Financial Assistance to the Association of Community 
 


Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) and its Affiliates
 
 

Page 20
 
 
 

Appendix C 

DHS OIG Response to Congressional Requests 

Since DHS provided no other financial assistance to ACORN and its affiliates, an 

assessment was not performed on the adequacy of oversight of its other grants, contracts, 

entitlements, and assistance. 

4. Did ACORN and its affiliates use DHS funds it received in accordance with the 

legislation and terms of the grant, contract, entitlement, or other form of assistance? 

The only funds ACORN or its affiliates received from DHS were the $450,484 FY 2007 

Fire Prevention and Safety grant awarded to the ACORN Institute. OIG audited this 

grant and determined that the ACORN Institute did not fully implement and evaluate the 

project according to the approved grant terms. In addition, ACORN Institute could not 

demonstrate how it spent $160,797 of these grant funds. 

5. Did DHS conduct an audit of how ACORN spent the FY 2007 funds and whether 

this audit was used to justify the FY 2008 award? 

DHS, through FEMA, did not audit how ACORN Institute spent the FY 2007 funds, and 

therefore an assessment of the ACORN Institute’s FY 2007 performance and outcomes 

was not available to justify the FY 2008 award. However, DHS OIG did audit the 

FY 2007 grant, as presented in this report, and determined that the ACORN Institute had 

not fully implemented or evaluated the FEMA-funded project. The ACORN Institute can 

not demonstrate how it spent $160,797 of these grant funds. 

6. Was a share of federal grant funds received by organizations affiliated with 

ACORN provided to the ACORN national headquarters, independent of any 

assistance provided on the grant? 

We identified journal entries in the ACORN Institute general ledger that transferred funds 

to ACORN Inc. These transactions were described as reimbursements for payroll and 

employee benefits, and administrative fees due to ACORN Inc. Some of these journal 

entries were selected in our sample, and we determined that the ACORN Institute did not 

have adequate documentation to support these expenses. As a result, these transactions 

have been reported to FEMA in our audit report as unsubstantiated expenses. 

DHS Financial Assistance to the Association of Community
 
 

Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) and its Affiliates
 
 

Page 21
 
 
Sample No. Program Title Technical Evaluation

Panel Average Score

FY 2007 Fire

Prevention and

Safety Grant Amount

1 Arson Detection/Prevention 94.33% $0.00  

2 Other 90.33%   $  850,000.00  

Other 88.33% $0.00  

3 General Prevention/Awareness 87.67%   $  127,699.00  

Other 86.33% $0.00  

Media/PR Campaign 84.67% $0.00  

4 Smoke Alarm Campaign 87.13%   $  384,800.00  

General Prevention/Awareness 85.99% $0.00  

Media/PR Campaign 79.00% $0.00  

5 Props/Trailers/Safety Village 86.67% $0.00  

6 Wildland Fire Mitigation 86.37% $0.00  

7 Props/Trailers/Safety Village 86.00% $0.00  

8 Props/Trailers/Safety Village 83.00% $0.00  

9 Media/PR Campaign 82.00% $0.00  

10 General Prevention/Awareness 77.67% $0.00  

11 General Prevention/Awareness 76.90% $0.00  

Arson Detection/Prevention 73.33% $0.00  

12 Code Development/Enforcement 75.76% $0.00  

Smoke Alarm Campaign 75.00% $0.00  

13 General Prevention/Awareness 74.33% $0.00  

14 Smoke Alarm Campaign 74.25% $0.00  

15 Smoke Alarm Campaign 73.67% $0.00  

Other 70.00% $0.00  

Code Development/Enforcement 68.56% $0.00  

16 General Prevention/Awareness 73.00% $0.00  

17 General Prevention/Awareness 72.67% $0.00  

18 General Prevention/Awareness 72.00% $0.00  

19 Firefighter Safety 71.67% $0.00  

20 General Prevention/Awareness 69.67% $0.00  

21 Other 69.33% $0.00  

22 Multi‐Hazard Prevention Programs 69.33% $0.00  

23 Props/Trailers/Safety Village 69.33% $0.00  

Smoke Alarm Campaign 63.34% $0.00  

24 Other 64.78% $0.00  

25 General Prevention/Awareness 64.00% $0.00  

26 General Prevention/Awareness 62.67% $0.00  

ACORN Institute General Prevention/Awareness 62.67% $  450,484.00  

27 Firefighter Safety 61.75% $0.00  

28 Firefighter Safety 59.00% $0.00  

29 General Prevention/Awareness 50.00% $0.00  

30 Other Not Eligible  for Program $0.00  

                                

Appendix D 

DHS OIG Analysis of Technical Evaluation Panel Scores 

Source: Random sample of community organizations; from FEMA FY 2007 Fire Prevention and Safety Grant files

DHS Financial Assistance to the Association of Community Organization 

for Reform Now (ACORN) and its Affiliates 

Page 22 
Appendix E 

ACORN Institute – FY 2007 Grant Implementation Plan 

ACTIVITIES OUTCOMES STRATEGY KEY TASKS 

Activity 1: Design and 

implement a community outreach program to residents to generate requests for in-home audits 

Increased education among low- to moderateincome populations in target areas, generate well-trained fire prevention leaders from the community, increased access to public officials. 

Involve community members in neighborhood meetings that promote fire education and prevention 

a) Creating a forum for education. Working with our partners on this project, the UFwill connect local fire departments to underserved populations. New members will intense campaign utilizing partner organizations' newsletters, partner organization's flyering, e-mails through the UFI partner listserv, auto-dials, and advertisements thrand benefits centers. b) Holding fire education focused community meetings. Community members will c

demonstrations at the regular monthly UFI-sponsored meetings. Through the direcdepartments, community members will be instructed in: • fireproofing homes • identifying local dangers • identifying hazardous housing materials • responsible landscaping c) Making in-home audits available to community members. At meetings, participaaudits done by fire fighters and trained volunteers. Fire safety messages and inforfire safety audits will be included in UFI partner newsletters and computer listserv. include working with local media and using paid print and radio advertising to promaudits. 

Activity 2: Develop Increased self- Recruit and train a) Identify local volunteers willing to perform basic in-home risk assessments 

Community Volunteers sufficiency at a student and b) All volunteers will participate in a fire safety and prevention training session led b

who will deliver fire community level, community volunteers personnel. Volunteer would be instructed to: 

prevention education to decreased demand on from neighborhood • identify the presence of a smoke detector and a fire extinguisher 

1,800 individual local fire departments for groups to conduct in- • identify fire hazards in the home 

households. outreach, opened doors 

to underserved communities, increased trust/familiarity between community members and public officials 

home fire safety audits. Tra ined volunteers working in partnership with local firefighters will conduct in-home fire safety audits on request by the homeowner. 

• identify landscaping hazards • determine if smoke detectors and fire extinguishers are operable • determine if a rope ladder is needed • determine if a family evacuation plan exists c) Conduct in-home audits focusing on points detailed above 

Activity 3: Process and 

analyze the results of the in-home fire safety audits 

Attained comprehensive 

understanding of unaddressed home risks, collected necessary information to remediate risks 

Volunteers and UFI program staff will review audits to assess needs 

a) Prepare necessary technology for distribution b) Identify community members in need of assistance in addressing risks c) Identify community members in need of assistance in case of evacuation d) Utilize computer-based tracking system developed as part of a previous FEMA fdemonstration project in Madison County, North Carolina to process and track the resulting activities 

DHS Financial Assistance to the Association of Community Organization 

for Reform Now (ACORN) and its Affiliates 

Page 23 
Appendix E 

ACORN Institute – FY 2007 Grant Implementation Plan 

ACTIVITIES OUTCOMES STRATEGY KEY TASKS 

Activity 4: Remediate 

homes which lack fire 

safety devices/have 

unaddressed risks 

Increased sense of 

community and 

community safety, 

minimized risk of undetected fires thus reducing risk of property damage, injury, and fatality 

Using in-home 

assessment results, 

trained volunteers will 

provide necessary equipment and instruction 

a) Acquire and install fire safety and protection devices (smoke detectors, fire extin

where needed.) 

b) Address identified fire hazard risks 

c) Assist in developing family evacuation plans in homes, where needed. • develop family evacuation plans in home, where needed • couple family evacuation plans with community evacuation plans, identifying those (elderly, those without transportation, etc.) • help families assemble safety kits • work with families to address pre-existing medical conditions 

Activity 5: Develop a 

computer tool to manage 

the information acquired 

in the in-home fire safety audits and the follow-up work conducted in each home audited 

Foundation laid for future 

prevention efforts in 

these communities 

Map all data to track 

which houses have 

been served and which have yet to be audited 

a) Working with partner One Economy, ACORN organizers and members of local f

• the status of smoke detectors and fire extinguishers 

• the existence of family evacuation plans • work done in the household addressing fire risks b) Map the results of the in-home fire safety audits across the neighborhood using system component of the computer tool. This will help fire departments and the UF

homes have yet to receive in-home fire safety audits. 

Source: ACORN Institute approved grant application 

DHS Financial Assistance to the Association of Community Organization 

for Reform Now (ACORN) and its Affiliates 

Page 24 
Appendix F 

ACORN Institute – FY 2007 Grant Evaluation Plan 

ACORN Institute 
 


FY 2007 Fire Prevention and Safety Grant 
 


EVALUATION PLAN 
 


The personnel hired and specially assigned to this project at each location will be 

responsible for the generation of periodic reports concerning progress and effectiveness. 

The evaluation will be based on number of members contacted, number of meetings held, 

and the data collected from evaluation surveys filled out by community members. The 

actual activities will be compared against these goals: 

3⁄4 Number of requests for in-home fire safety audits generated 

3⁄4 Number of homes with high risk populations such as children and senior 

citizens where in-home fire safety audits are conducted 

3⁄4 Number of fire safety devices (smoke detectors and fire extinguishers) 

installed 

3⁄4 Number of homes where identified fire risks are identified and addressed 

3⁄4 Number of partners participating in program 

3⁄4 Number of volunteers participating in the program 

3⁄4 Number of individuals, children and adults, who participate in fire safety 

demonstrations in community meetings 

Source: ACORN Institute approved grant application 

DHS Financial Assistance to the Association of Community Organization 

for Reform Now (ACORN) and its Affiliates 

Page 25 
Appendix G 

Major Contributors to This Report 

Michael Siviy, Director 

Barry Russell, Desk Officer 

Katrina Bynes, Audit Lead 

Brian Blaha, Auditor 

Keith Nackerud, Program Analyst 

Jeff Mun, Auditor 

DHS Financial Assistance to the Association of Community Organization 

for Reform Now (ACORN) and its Affiliates 

Page 26 
Appendix H 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff 

Deputy Chief of Staff 

General Counsel 

Executive Secretariat 

Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs Directorate 

Federal Emergency Management Agency Audit Liaison 

Grant Programs Directorate Audit Liaison 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as 

appropriate 

DHS Financial Assistance to the Association of Community Organization 

for Reform Now (ACORN) and its Affiliates 

Page 27 
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES 

To obtain additional copies of this report, please call the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at (202) 254-4100, 

fax your request to (202) 254-4305, or visit the OIG web site at www.dhs.gov/oig. 

OIG HOTLINE 

To report alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any other kind of criminal or noncriminal 

misconduct relative to department programs or operations: 

• Call our Hotline at 1-800-323-8603; 

• Fax the complaint directly to us at (202) 254-4292; 

• Email us at DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov; or 

• Write to us at: 

DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 2600, 

Attention: Office of Investigations - Hotline, 

245 Murray Drive, SW, Building 410, 

Washington, DC 20528. 

The OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller.