Department of Homeland Security

Office of Inspector General 

Ohio Law Enforcement Terrorism 
 

Prevention Program 
 

Subgrants Fiscal Years 2004–2006 
 

OIG-11-60 March 2011 
Office of Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 20528 

  MAR    23 2011

Preface 

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

established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) by amendment 

to the Inspector General Act of 1978. 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 addresses the accountability and proper use of grant funds of the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, 

subgranted by the state of Ohio during fiscal years 2004–2006. 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 
Table of Contents/Abbreviations 

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

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

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

Non-Payroll Expenditures ............................................................................................ 3 
 

Recommendation ......................................................................................................... 6 
 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis ................................................................ 6 
 

Payroll Expenditures .................................................................................................... 6 
 

Recommendation ......................................................................................................... 9 
 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis ................................................................ 9 
 

Appendices 

Appendix A: Purpose, Scope, and Methodology ..................................................... 10 
 

Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report ..................................... 12 
 

Appendix C: Non-payroll Questioned Costs ........................................................... 16 
 

Appendix D: Major Contributors to this Report ...................................................... 17 
 

Appendix E: Report Distribution ............................................................................ 18 
 

Abbreviations 

DHS Department of Homela nd Security 
 

OIG Office of Inspector General 
 

FEMA Federal Emergency Managem ent Agency 
 

FY fiscal year 
 
OIG
 


Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Executive Summary 

At the request of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Grant Programs Directorate, the Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General audited the Law Enforcement 

Terrorism Prevention Program funds subgran ted by the Ohio 

Emergency Management Agency to the Ohio As sociation of 

Chiefs of Police. The audit focused on approximately $21,500,000 

awarded during fiscal years 2004 through 2006. 

We reviewed questioned costs of $1,992,209 in non-payroll and 

$2,851,945 in payroll costs totaling $4,844,154 previously 

identified by the accounting firm Crowe Horw ath. We verified 

these costs were either not allowable or did not have proper 

supporting documentation, and confirmed the findings in the 

Crowe Horwath report. The expenditures were unallowable 

because they were unrelated to the grant activ ity, misclassified, 

outside the period of performance, or not suppo rted by receipts or 

invoices. We also reviewed a judgmental sample of the rem aining 

grant funds expended by the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police, 

and agreed with Crowe Horwath’s determinat ion of compliance 

with grant requirements for those funds. 

We made two recommendations to the Feder al Emergency 

Management Agency to request reimbursement of $1,992,209 

from the Ohio Emergency Management Agency for non-payroll 

expenditures that were unallowable or did not have proper 

supporting documentation, and $2,851,945 in unallowable payroll 

expenditures, for a total of $4,844,154. 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency concurred with the 

recommendations and is taking action to implement them. 

Ohio Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program Subgrants Fiscal Years 2004–2006 


Page 1 

Background
 


As part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 

Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, the Ohio 

Emergency Management Agency awarded the Ohio Association of 

Chiefs of Police more than $21 million over 3 fiscal years (FYs) 

(2004–2006) to establish a computer network t o improve 

communication among law enforcement agencie s by linking 

Ohio’s 900+ police agencies. The Ohio Local L aw Enforcement 

Information Sharing Network developed with these funds has been 

implemented and is currently operated by th e Ohio State Attorney 

General’s Office. 

In 2005, the Ohio Emergency Management Agency conducted a 

review of the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police that identified 

questioned and unsupported costs. The Ohio E mergency 

Management Agency requested assistance and guidance from 

FEMA on how to proceed owing to ongoing concerns with the 

Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police grant administration. As a 

result, the Ohio Emergency Management Age ncy retained the 

accounting firm Crowe Horwath LLP to conduc t a comprehensive 

review of the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police financial 

records for FYs 2004–2006. Crowe Horwath found $4,844,154 in 

questionable costs. 

In November 2009, the FEMA Grant Program s Directorate 

reviewed the accounting firm’s report and theOhio Emergency 

Management Agency’s subsequent analysis o f this report. In 

March 2010, FEMA requested that the State ofOhio reimburse 

$4,498,996 for expenditures that were either not allowable or did 

not have proper supporting documentation. The FEMA request for 

reimbursement was $345,158 less than the Crowe Horwath amount 

because FEMA considered expenditures that had been 

misclassified by the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police as 

allowable. 

In April 2010, FEMA requested that the Department of Homeland 

Security Office of Inspector General (DHS-OIG) conduct an audit 

of the Ohio Emergency Management Agency’s L aw Enforcement 

Terrorism Prevention Program, from which the Ohio Association 

of Chiefs of Police received its funding, for FYs 2004–2006, to 

ensure that Crowe Horwath provided the most thorough and expert 

review of its grant activities and financial accounting. 

Ohio Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program Subgrants Fiscal Years 2004–2006 


Page 2 

Results of Audit 
 

During FYs 2004–2006, the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police spent 

$4,844,154 in Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program funds that 

were not allowable or did not have proper supporting documentation. The 

expenditures ($1,992,209 in non-payroll-related grant funds and 

$2,851,945 in payroll-related grant funds) were not perm itted for several 

reasons, including that they were unrelated to the grant a ctivity, 

misclassified, outside the period of performance, or not supported by 

receipts or invoices. We also reviewed a judgmental s ample of the 

remaining grant funds expended by the Ohio A ssociation of Chiefs of 

Police, and agreed with Crowe Horwath’s determin ation of compliance 

with grant requirements for those funds. 

Non-Payroll Expenditures 

To determine th e unallowable expenditures the Ohio Association of Chiefs 

of Police charged to the Law Enforcement Terrorism Pre vention Program 

from FYs 2004–2006, we evaluated Crowe Horwath’s q uestioned 

non-payroll costs, such as vendor invoices. We r eviewed grant funds 

awarded and expended from the FYs 2004–2006 gra nts to ensure all 

expenditures were in accordance with federal laws, agency regulations, 

and grant agreements and guidelines. There were five categories of 

questioned costs: unsupported allocations, transactions outside of the 

period of performance, misclassification of expendit ures, unsupported 

transactions, and unrelated to grant activity. 

Table 1 summarizes the results of our review of the n on-payroll 

transactions in comparison with the Crowe Horw ath review. We were 

unable to review 100% of the questioned costs because the Ohio 

Association of Chiefs of Police was unable to locate su pporting 

documentation. Since hard copies of these records had been available for 

previous reviews, we believe these records were misfiled. We were still 

able to verify more than 90% of the questioned costs. 

Ohio Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program Subgrants Fiscal Years 2004–2006 


Page 3 

Table 1. Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program 
 

Questioned Costs for FYs 2004–2006 
 

Questioned Costs Crowe DHS-OIG Not Verified Horwath Verified 

Unsupported 

Allocations $365,528 $318,166 $47,362 

Transaction 

Period of Pe 

s Outs 

rform 

ide of 

ance $789,846 $782,313 $7,533 

Misclassification o f 

Expenditures $345,158 $307,332 $37,826 

Unsupported 

Transactions $269,480 $227,701 $41,779 

Unrelated to Grant 

Activity $222,197 $185,84 0 $36,357 

Totals $1,992,209 $1,821,352 $170,857 

Unsupported Allocations 

The transactions that represented the costs categorized as 

unsupported allocations included utilities and building 

maintenance allocated across several funds. Transactions in this 

category either had no support for the basis of al location or had no 

allocation noted. No documentation was provid ed to explain how 

allocation percentages to the Law Enforc ement Terrorism 

Prevention Program were derived. We were able to review 

$318,166 of the $365,528 questioned by Crowe Horwath as 

unsupported allocations, and we concurred with its finding. 

Additional details are provided in Appendix C. 

Transactions Outside of Period of Performance 

Each grant awarded to the Ohio Association o f Chiefs of Police 

had a period of performance, and the transa ctions representing 

these costs were allocated over this period of pe rformance. For 

example, the Internet maintenance contracts we re three-year 

contracts, whereas the period of performance fo r the Law 

Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program gra nt was two years. 

The contract must have been completed within the grant’s 

two-year period of performance to be allowab le. We were able to 

verify $782,313 of the $789,846 questioned by Crowe Horwath as 

transactions outside the period of performance, and we concurred 

with its finding. Additional details are provided in Appendix C. 

Ohio Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program Subgrants Fiscal Years 2004–2006 

Page 4 
Misclassification of Expenditures 

These costs include those that would be allowable had the cost 

been properly classified at entry in the accounting records, or costs 

that were included on the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police’s 

budget worksheet, but were not assigned to the appropriate 

accounting code. For example, legal fees sho uld have been 

classified as miscellaneous support and not as co ntractual support. 

The Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police maintained a Budg et 

Detail Worksheet for each grant year. According to the budget 

worksheet, legal costs should have been classified and assigned to 

the administrative/miscellaneous costs accou nt rather than the 

planning costs account; the planning costs were specifically 

classified for subject matter experts (contractor s) to undertake 

program development. We were able to verify $307,332 of the 

$345,158 questioned by Crowe Horwath as misclassified 

expenditures, and we concurred with its findi ng. Additional details 

are provided in Appendix C. 

Unsupported Transactions 

Transactions that had no supporting documentat ion or insufficient 

supporting documentation were included in this category. This 

category also includes transactions for which prior authorization by 

the Ohio Emergency Management Agency was required, but not 

received, under Office of Management and Bud get Circular A-87, 

Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments. 

For example, representatives from the O hio Association of Chiefs 

of Police traveled to Turkey for training. There was no 

documentation supporting the approval of the tri ps. All 

international travel should have been approved before the trip. We 

were able to verify $227,701 of the $269,480 questioned by Crowe 

Horwath as unsupported transactions, and we concurred with its 

finding. Additional details are provided in Appendix C. 

Unrelated to Grant Activity 

This category included transactions for which we were unable to 

determine how the costs incurred benefited th e grant program. For 

example, items in this category include prin ting books, award 

plaques, and lapel pins that were not related to the grant objective. 

We were able to verify $185,840 of the $222,197 questioned by 

Crowe Horwath as costs unrelated to grant activity, and we 

concurred with its finding. Additional details are provided in 

Appendix C. 

Ohio Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program Subgrants Fiscal Years 2004–2006 

Page 5 
Conclusion 

Crowe Horwath identified $1,992,209 in non-payroll questionable 

costs, and we verified $1,821,352 of this amount. Based on our 

review of available documentation and confirmation of the Crowe 

Horwath analysis, we agreed with its findings. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs 

Directorate: 

Recommendation #1: Request reimbursement of $1,992,209 

from the Ohio Emergency Management Agency for non-payroll 

expenditures that were unallowable or did no t have proper 

supporting documentation. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

The FEMA Grant Programs Directorate concurred with the 

recommendation and will request reimbursem ent from the Ohio 

Emergency Management Agency for non-pay roll expenditures 

totaling $1,012,043. The FEMA Grant Programs Directorate will 

consider the remaining $980,166 in non -payroll costs as 

unallowable, unless within 90 days of the date of this report, the 

Ohio Emergency Management Agency prov ides supporting 

documentation that demonstrates the expend itures noted were 

allowable and in accordance with grant program guidance. 

FEMA’s proposed actions address the intent of the 

recommendation, and we consider this recom mendation resolved 

and open. Once FEMA has fully implemen ted the 

recommendation and submits a formal close-o ut memorandum, 

including evidence of completion of agreed-upon corrective 

actions and of the disposition of any monetary amounts, we will 

close the recommendation. 

Payroll Expenditures 

To determine the unallowable payroll expenditures the Ohio Association 

of Chiefs of Police charged to the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention 

Program from FYs 2004–2006, we evaluated Crowe Horwath’s 

questioned payroll costs. We reviewed the Ohio Association of Chiefs of 

Police timesheets, payroll allocation forms, and health insurance 

documents for compliance with federal laws, agency regulations, and 

Ohio Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program Subgrants Fiscal Years 2004–2006 

Page 6 
Table 2. Review of Available Pay roll Timesheets 

for FYs 2004–2006 

Date Signed & 

Reviewed 

Employee 

Only Signed Total

August 2004 11 3 14 

June 2004 3 1 4 

July 2004 13 1 14 

October 2004 2 19 21 

November 2004 0 2 2 

September 2005 3 14 17 

December 2006 8 5 13 

Totals 40 45 85 

grant agreements and guidelines. We identified three categories of 

questioned costs: lack of compliant timesheets, lack of timesheets, and 

lack of health insurance documents. 

Lack of Compliant Timesheets 

To determine if the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police 

timesheets were co mpliant, we reviewed 85 individual staff 

timesheets for employee signatu re and evidence of supervisory 

review. Of these 85, only 40 were signed by the employee and 

reviewed by a supervisor. Office of Management and Budget 

Circular A-87 requires employee salaries and wages to be 

supported by periodic certifications stating that the employees 

worked solely on the program for which the grant was awarded 

during the period covered. These certificatio ns must be prepared 

at least semiannually and must be signed by t he employee or 

supervisor with firsthand knowledge of the wor k performed. 

Table 2 summarizes the results of our review of the timesheets. 

We were unable to review 100% of the Crowe Horwath costs 

because supporting documentation that had been available for 

previous reviews was now missing. 

Lack of Timesheets 

For the 3-year period 2004–2006, we expected to review 832 

timesheets based on a biweekly pay schedule, but we received only 

85 for review. The Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police did not 

require timesheets for the staff or the Executive Director on a 

regular basis. Again, Office of Management and Budget Circular 

Ohio Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program Subgrants Fiscal Years 2004–2006 

Page 7 
Table 3. Expected Payroll Timesheets for FYs 2004–2006 

Grant 

Year 

Staff That 

Performed 

Grant Work 

Timesheets 

Expected 

Timesheets 

Provided to 

Crowe 

Horwa th 

Timesheets 

Provided to

DHS-OIG

2004 7 182 7 0 55

2005 13 33817 17

200 6 12 31213 13

Total s 32 832100 85

A-87 requires employee salaries and wages to be supported by 

periodic certifications stating that the employees worked solely on 

the program for which the grant was awarded during the period 

covered. 

Table 3 summarizes the results of our review of the total number of 

timesheets that should have documented payr oll expenditures. We 

were unable to verify 100% of the staff payroll costs Crowe 

Horwath identified because supporting documen tation that had 

been available for previous reviews was now mi ssing, or the 

records did not exist because the Ohio Association of Chiefs of 

Police did not require timesheets. 

In addition, we were not able to obtain all timesh eets for the former 

Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police Executive Director during FYs 

2004–2006. We were able to obtain timesheets f rom 2004 and the 

Executive Director’s handwritten notes that we re used to document 

his time for February and March 2006. The timesheets were not 

compliant. The 2004 timesheets did not incl ude a name, date, or 

signature. Those from 2006 were not signed by th e Executive 

Director and showed no indication they had been reviewed. In 

addition, they all displayed the same date, as if they were all created 

on the same day for an entire year, or as if that p articular date was 

added to all the timesheets. Crowe Horwath questioned $803,678 

that was allocated to thegrant. We were unable to quantify a total 

based on the limited supporting documents received. 

Lack of Health Insurance Documents 

Health care insurance was provided to the Ohio Association of 

Chiefs of Police staff and the Executive Director; however, 

because of inadequate timesheets, health insurance costs were 

questioned because they were allocated based on time records. 

The Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police was unable to provide 

health insurance documents for FYs 2004–2006. 

Ohio Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program Subgrants Fiscal Years 2004–2006 

Page 8 
Conclusion 

Crowe Horwath identified $2,851,945 in questionable payroll costs. 

We were able to review only staff payroll allocation records 

totaling $1,330,061 in questioned costs that the Ohio Association of 

Chiefs of Police payroll allocated to the grant for FYs 2004–2006. 

We were not able to verify the entire Crowe Horw ath amount 

owing to the lack of supporting and compliant do cumentation. 

Based on our review of available documentation and confirmation 

of the Crowe Horwath analysis, we agreed with its findings. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs 

Directorate: 

Recommendation #2: Request reimbursement of $2,851,945 

from the Ohio Emergency Management Age ncy for payroll 

expenditures that were unallowable or did not have proper 

supporting documentation. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

The FEMA Grants Programs Directorate co ncurred with the 

recommendation. The expenditures for the Executive Director’s 

salary were unreasonable, unallowable, and inco nsistent with grant 

guidance, and the Ohio Emergency Management Agency m ust 

reimburse the federal government for these e xpenditures. For the 

other payroll expenses, FEMA has given the Ohio Emergency 

Management Agency 90 days to provide additio nal documentation 

substantiating these costs. If approved by the FEMA Grants 

Programs Directorate, these costs may be co nsidered allowable in 

accordance with grant program guidance. Failure to provide the 

requested documentation within 90 days will lead to the costs 

being considered as a debt and referred to FEMA’s Office of the 

Chief Financial Officer for collection. 

FEMA’s proposed actions address the intent of the 

recommendation, and we consider this recomm endation resolved 

and open. Once FEMA has fully implemented the 

recommendation and submitted a formal close-out memorandum, 

including evidence of completion of agreed-upon corrective 

actions and of the disposition of any monetary amounts, we will 

close the recommendation. 

Ohio Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program Subgrants Fiscal Years 2004–2006 

Page 9 
Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

The purpose of the audit was to review the Law Enforcement 

Terrorism Prevention Program funds awarded to and expended by 

the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police during FYs 2004–2006 to 

ensure that the accounting firm Crowe Horwath had performed a 

thorough and expert review of the grant expenditures and financial 

accounting. 

To determine the unallowable non-payroll expen ditures the Ohio 

Association of Chiefs of Police charged to the La w Enforcement 

Terrorism Prevention Program from 2004 through 2006, we 

evaluated Crowe Horwath’s questioned non-payroll costs, such as 

vendor invoices. We reviewed grant funds aw arded and expended 

during FYs 2004–2006 to ensure all expenditures were in 

accordance with federal laws, agency regulation s, and grant 

agreements and guidelines. 

To determine theunallowable payroll expenditures the Ohio 

Association of Chiefs of Police charged to the Law Enforcement 

Terrorism Prevention Program from FYs 2004 –2006, we evaluated 

Crowe Horwath’s questioned payroll costs. We reviewed th e Ohio 

Association of Chiefs of Police timesheets, payroll allocation 

forms, and health insurance documents for comp liance with federal 

laws, agency regulations, and grant agreemen ts and guidelines. 

Fieldwork was conducted at the FEMA office inWashington, DC, 

the Ohio Emergency Management Agency of fice, and the Ohio 

Association of Chiefs of Police office. Fieldwork included a 

review of applicable laws, regulations, policy, and internal 

directives used by FEMA and the Ohio Emerge ncy Management 

Agency to authorize, identify, report, and track expenses. The 

team developed an understanding of the application approval and 

oversight process for grant funds. 

We reviewed all available receipts for the $4,844,154 Crowe 

Horwath identified as questioned funds. We als o reviewed a 2% 

judgmental sample of the remaining Law Enforcem ent Terrorism 

Prevention Program funds expended by the Ohio Association of 

Chiefs of Police to verify Crowe Horwath’s finding of compliance 

with grant requirements. 

We interviewed FEMA, Ohio Emergency Management Agency, 

and Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police officials to obtain their 

views and opinions on the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention 

Program grant, the communication system that resulted from the 

grant, and additional areas of concern. 

Ohio Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program Subgrants Fiscal Years 2004–2006 


Page 10 

Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

The audit was not a financial statement review and we did not 

provide an opinion on whether the subgrantee’s financial 

statements were presented in conformity with generally accepted 

accounting principles. 

We conducted this compliance audit between M ay and December 

2010 pursuant to 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 conclusio ns based on our 

audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a 

reasonable basis for our findings and conclus ions based on our 

audit objectives. 

Ohio Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program Subgrants Fiscal Years 2004–2006 


Page 11 

Ohio Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program Subgrants Fiscal Years 2004–2006
 


Page 12
 


m._..__ >;_OC»<7>

GFEMA

F<bnwy 11,2(111

lIEYORA.';DUMFOR: An...LRiclw<h

AsU"mt Insponor G<n<nl for Audits

FRO.\!:

SUBJECT: R<>pom< to IhfI R.<port OIG: Ohio Low Enfor.....- T<norism

Prn_Proz<am Fiscal Y.... lOO4-lOO6

Thalli: you for Ibo opp<>JlUIlity Prn_to COCIlIIIODl OIl Ibo subj<ct dr>ll r<port ontitI<d, "OIIio Low

&fon:_ T<norism Proz<am Subgan!I Fiscal Y.... lOO4-lOO6". The fmo:Iiq:s ill tho

f<pOJ1 will be used to tho .rr..::IP."m<OS.M of6cioon<y ofbow ".., <UClIIe mol .....""" 1be

_ W. tho ..-I to cootinuo to imprm.., 1ho procns. iD<:h>iliojo; tho

=ommmdItiom ..i><d in !his r<port.

Thalli: you for Ibo opp<>JlUIlity to =pood to tho r<port mol to wed: wiIh tho Oflic< of1be Imp<rto.-

G<oonl Ibm,; !his 0CIp~""""-

«: Lo"", ees.rio, Dir<etor, Gn", AdmiDisttatiOll ood Asm"DC< Divisioa

MiIdr<d Lloyd, GPD Audit liai>on

--

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 
RnpH.. '0 ,Il< Dnrt R<pon OIG-IIl-I./O-AUD-FEllA: 01Uo Law EBfor«.'o'

T rornm Pr....oliooo Pr0lr>m S.bl"-"" FY M-06

ole Rooo no. II: ~,.--....-ofSI.I'I'JX'\' frnm Ohio

Mom!="", Ay!Jr; ((lEMA) ro. """",,,,~bl< llOIl_poyroD ill

>Om< e.,..lxl:~prop<J docum<nlatiOlL

FDiA RnpH.. '0 OIG 1'KODlIII.....ti.. II: _ OIl Ib< DIIS OIG.udit, FEMA

GratIt Prouomo Dircct""l< (GPD) eOD<Un with Ib< =""...,btioa tha, FEMA """"

frnm OEMA mil "ill do so fOJ llOJI_po}'roll np<DI!itur<s """"'"

",,"!low"l< by FEMA. b:> its It',.""...."i"" ~I, Ib< OIG.v-I with "" HO<Wllth wdi, fmo:linp wlOCh __UIl&1ltJwobic costs .. folkm~:

(.j ollocotioo< SJM,~21

(b) ,.. etions _tic ofp<Jf~p<riocI $1f;\1.141i

(ej mjvl ifi<>tioa of<IJl"ll'hturn $l4~,U8

(<I) """'PI"""lnmal"Iioom $269,410, ODd

(.j lIIIl<lo1od '0 Ib< UU" Ol"!i\'ity $222,191

U-...bl. <0'"" (bj omd (.). FEMA GPD eOD<Un with Ib< oudil tho1 CO<IS ro. both of

_ C01~. toI>1iD,o; ",012,043 .,. UIl&1Wwoblc.

U-...bl (.), (c) om. (<I), .bo.... FEMA GPD ",:ill <omid« tb< $980,166 ill

""II.. tl"oll", b1<, WlI<ss OEMA I""''idcs tIocummblioo ",tbiD 90 doY'

oflb< ..... ofthil rcpon tha, tI<mom,..... Ib< cxpcndiIu= -..I....... .no..~bl< mil iII

"""",dm::. ",ith uo'" _

By way of Ib< DIIS OIG vcrifiod.,otol oU221,l01 ill"""'PI""" ,.....etions ISlIOCiat<d with iol<mlli.oool "....1tha, mm>b<n oflb< Ohio Asoociatioa of

an.& ofPobcc (OACP) IIIaIl< to Ib< <OIIIIIIy ofTud:~. b:> oro..: to ,,'<lid tbilI fimn

GPD hocI ....blUb<d. policy ,,'b<r<by y>III<ft.,. r<qIIir<d '0 submiI, prio.-

un~"'....... _'<1, • ",ri_ f<qII<Sl to <locummt mil justify UU" ",Io,od _'ft '0to

• fomp> «IlIIIlry. Prior to 0IIIl0lID<~ Ib< ...... policy tho1 .... tm1SI submiI.

f<qII<Sl to wtboriz< _"I "' _ eo<1I " .... ill fon ooosid<J<d l!low.bIc. bill

tlD1y witbiD Ib< Pm_oc:op< oflb< fucol j (fY) 2001 tlIrouy. IT 2006 Low Eufor''''''IIl

T«ro<i= Proz<amb:> ord<J '0 assisl FEMA GPO ",th ill tI<t«minotioa f<JI .ll",nbility oflb<..

<XJI<IlS<S "" UU".. IIIII5I ..bmi, "" followiJql; info<mIliolII",ilbiII 90 doyo

Nom< ofS,.,. oodIOIlocol oys><y _"I;

NwmoJ ofiJ>di,-idwol< ~1ICiIqI; _,,~ iD<h>dio,o; ..ol:ltitlc ood .~

afliliotioo

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Ohio Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program Subgrants Fiscal Years 2004–2006
 


Page 13
 

tr "gg ,Hrl . 0: '" §; if· e'

i

0:> "'i' ....

j r

r

1 H, 'j1' "[. "t:- li"lf!' Sl ,I fl I·,t i!q

.•.. Ji,m!l ]"';0 "F" i! • I ru . .ill .! . WJ! ,-"

, HII

t

H j

tt"•• 1ft,

11 i

§

h8

1

i.,

"

o. .'Ji .r, H·

- ," ••

n .[1 ?

"

f l,t h, 1,1 'lH

H

m'U . U t1l>/,= i!

I

:! 'f . a! 'i

a •. !t

"

Appendix B

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Ohio Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program Subgrants Fiscal Years 2004–2006
 


Page 14
 

OEMA sbouId pm. suffici<nl pnsition <I=:ipIi-, ........,

and fringe _lit> ill suflici<nl drtoil, iIId~ =tificotiom by <U<Vti,... ill chary of

til< that <fttIin wml,,"aS cam.d '"" IDII poIf<>Jm<d. By prm~ this

do< '-boD .M J,o,...1 of<lotm, FEMA GPO will bo.blo tG mak................... to

til< .lipbility md all<JwIbility fur poymeDl of,alf..1ari<s ",lat<d to th< B~ tim<ob<fl>

_ ill til< DIIS OlG rq><>n

Tbi< infonmlioI:l aDd II!l _ oh_tioID pJb<t>nti.1i.Dl! <...mm' be rubnitl<d

",ithin 90 days to FEldA GPD f<JI cOll5i<lontiocl IT ~'M by FEMA GPD, _ CO<IS

""ybe «JDrid<nd .no..~bl< ill occmim<. "ith uu" prouun

Failur< to JII'I';<!o the "'P'''od <Iocum<nt>tioo ",ithin 90 days will II< IS I

_ IDI! ",r..nd to FEMA>I Offic. of aD<r Filwrial Oflicor (OCFO) fur rnu..:ti<n

At that tim<, FEMA GPO will ",liDquish.il r<sp<>mibility to «111«:, til< _ to FEMA

OC'O

It is ...-that proper odmi%li>tJ>tM ood C<Kt priDcipl« of~. ""'~" ....

.......ly bchD,o; .. til< SII'" t...'ti. 'Tb< SII'" hu, ~"'" tI!<... ...,. to mitipt< ......

fiDo:Iinp id<oti6<d throup. FEMA mooitorio,o;'M by th< 010. his."idont!hat 1be Sbl.

i! tb< D<CftUlJ' ""'"to put inpia« sound fma<rial IIWII~ pn<ti<n md

tools 1o miti.9'0 and.void this fimn ~;"til< funn.

,

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Ohio Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program Subgrants Fiscal Years 2004–2006
 


Page 15
 

Table C-1. Non-Payroll Questionable Costs – Crowe H orwath 

Crowe Horwath 

Questioned Costs Reviewed 

Account 

5124 

FY 2006 

Account 

5126 

FY 2004 

Account 

5127 

FY 2005 

Totals 

Unsupported allocations 

Transactions outside of period of 

performance 

Misclass ification of expendit ures 

129,200 

42,157 

64,108 

119,006 

195,743 

193,982 

117,322 

551,946 

87,068 

365,528 

789,846

345,158 

Unsupported transactions 112,679 106,409 50,392 269,480 

Unrelated to grant a ctivity 

fied by 

wath 

Total Costs Identi 

Crowe Hor 

69,740 

417,884 

58,443 

673,583 

94,014 

900,742 

222,197

$1,992,209

Table C-2. Non-Payroll Questionable Costs – DHS-OIG

DHS-OIG 

Questioned Costs 

Account

5124 

FY 2006 

Account 

5126 

FY 2004 

Account 

5127 

FY 2005 

Totals 

Unsupported allocations 108,707 93,269 116,190 318,166 

Transactions outside of perio 

performance 

d of 37,957 192,410 551,946 782,313

Misclassification of expendi tures 35,155 191,811 80,366 307,332 

Unsupported transactions 96,218 85,745 45,738 227,701

Unrelated to grant activity 50,202 44,328 91,310 185,840 

Total Costs Identified by OIG 328,239 607,563 885,550 $1,821,352 

Appendix C 

Non-payroll Questioned Costs 

The following tables display the five categories of questioned costs for non-payroll 

expenditures. Three transaction codes were used to post the invoices to the correct 

account: 5124, 5126, and 5127, representing the individual grant years. 

Table C-1 displays the total amount of the Ohio Association of Ch iefs of Police 

expenditures Crowe Horwath identified as questionable costs. Table C-2 displays the 

total amount of expenditures DHS-OIG was able to conf irm. We verified $1,821,352, of 

the $1,992,209 questionable costs. 

Ohio Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program Subgrants Fiscal Years 2004–2006
 


Page 16
 

Appendix D 

Major Contributors to this Report 

Michael Siviy, Director, Grants Management Division 

Brad Mosher, Staff Manager 

Carolyn Floyd, Auditor-in-Charge 

Rachel Magnus, Program Analyst 

Cory Upmeyer, Program Analyst 

Ohio Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program Subgrants Fiscal Years 2004–2006 


Page 17 

Appendix E 

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 

Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs Directorate 

Federal Emergency Management Ag ency Audit Liaison 

Grant Programs Directorate Audit Liais on 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as 

appropriate 

Ohio Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program Subgrants Fiscal Years 2004–2006
 


Page 18
 

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.