Department of Homeland Security
 

Mississippi’s Management of 


State Homeland Security Program Grants 


Awarded During Fiscal Years 2008 Through 2010 


OIG-13-72 April 2013
 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Department of Homeland Security

Washington, DC 20528 / www.oig.dhs.gov

APR 9 2013

MEMORANDUM FOR:	 David J. Kaufman

Acting Assistant Administrator

Grant Programs Directorate

Federal Emergency Management Agency

FROM:	 Anne L. Richards (/~~~

Assistant Inspector General for Audits

SUBJECT:	 Mississippi's Management of State Homeland Security

Program Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2008 Through

2010

Attached for your action is our final report, Mississippi's Management of State Homeland

Security Program Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2008 Through 2010. We incorporated

the formal comments from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the State of

Mississippi in the final report.

The report contains 12 recommendations aimed at improving the State of Mississippi's

management of State Homeland Security Program grants. Your office concurred with the

12 recommendations. Based on information provided in your response to the draft report,

we closed one recommendation and consider the remaining 11 recommendations open and

resolved. Once your office has fully implemented the recommendations, please submit a

formal closeout letter to us within 30 days so that we may close the recommendations. The

memorandum should be accompanied by evidence of completion of agreed-upon corrective

actions and ofthe disposition of any monetary amounts.

Consistent with our responsibility under the Inspector General Act, we are providing copies

of our report to appropriate congressional committees with oversight and appropriation

responsibility over the Department of Homeland Security. We will post the report on our

website for public dissemination.

Please call me with any questions, or your staff may contact John E. McCoy II,

Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits, at (202) 254-4100.

Attachment
 

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

Strategic Planning .................................................................................................. 3 

Recommendations .................................................................................................. 6 

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

Grant Fund Allocation Process................................................................................ 7 

Recommendation.................................................................................................... 7 

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

Monitoring Subgrantee Activities and Use of Purchased Equipment .................... 8 

Recommendation

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

.................................................................................................... 9 

Sole-source Procurements ..................................................................................... 9 

Recommendations ................................................................................................ 10 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis ......................................................... 10 

Property Management Controls and Accountability ........................................... 11 

Recommendations ................................................................................................ 13 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis ......................................................... 14 

Personnel Time Charges ....................................................................................... 15 

Recommendations ................................................................................................ 16 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis ......................................................... 16 

Appendixes

Appendix A: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ........................................... 18 

Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report .............................. 22 

Appendix C: State of Mississippi Homeland Security Governance ................... 27 

Appendix D: Homeland Security Grant Program ............................................... 28 

Appendix E: Major Contributors to This Report ............................................... 29 

Appendix F: Report Distribution ....................................................................... 30 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Table of Contents

www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-13-72 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FY fiscal year

GPD Grant Programs Directorate 

HSGP Homeland Security Grant Program 

M&A management and administration 

MOHS Mississippi Office of Homeland Security 

OIG Office of Inspector General

SAA State Administrative Agency

SHSP State Homeland Security Program

www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-13-72
 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Executive Summary 

Public Law 110-53, ImplementingfRecommendationsfoffthef9/11fCommissionfActfoff

2007, requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Office of Inspector General 

(OIG), to audit individual States’ management of State Homeland Security Program and 

Urban Areas Security Initiative grants. This report responds to the reporting requirement 

for the State of Mississippi. 

The audit objectives were to determine whether the State of Mississippi distributed and 

spent State Homeland Security Program grant funds (1) effectively and efficiently, and

(2) in compliance with applicable Federal laws and regulations. We also addressed the 

extent to which grant funds enhanced the State’s ability to prevent, prepare for, protect 

against, and respond to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made 

disasters. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) awarded the State of 

Mississippi approximately $19.3 million in State Homeland Security Program grants 

during fiscal years 2008 through 2010. 

In some instances, the State of Mississippi distributed and spent State Homeland 

Security Program grant funds in compliance with applicable Federal laws and 

regulations; however, improvements are needed. For example, the State developed a 

strategic plan, but it was not adequate. The State did not establish a means to measure 

progress toward preparedness as a result of receiving grant funds, or allocate funding 

based on risks identified through a statewide collaborative process. The State did not 

monitor subgrantee accountability and use of resources purchased with grant funds, 

ensure that sole-source procurements followed Federal and State requirements, or 

properly account for management and administration expenses as required by 

regulation. 

We made 12 recommendations to FEMA, which, if implemented, should strengthen 

program management, performance, and oversight. FEMA concurred with these 

recommendations.

www.oig.dhs.gov 1 OIG-13-72
 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Background

DHS provides Federal funding through the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) to 

help State and local agencies enhance capabilities to prevent, protect against, respond 

to, and recover from terrorist attacks and major disasters. The State Homeland Security 

Program (SHSP) grant is one element of the HSGP, designed to fund a wide range of 

preparedness activities, including planning, organization, equipment purchase, training, 

exercises, and management and administration costs. 

During fiscal years (FY) 2008, 2009, and 2010, FEMA awarded the State of Mississippi 

SHSP grant funds totaling approximately $19.3 million. The State of Mississippi has 

82 counties divided into nine regions, with three task forces that provide all-hazards 

response to natural and manmade disasters across the State. The State did not receive 

Urban Area Security Initiative funds during this period. 

In 2004, the Governor of Mississippi established the Mississippi Office of Homeland 

Security (MOHS) and designated this office as the State Administrative Agency (SAA) 

responsible for administering the HSGP. The SAA is responsible for managing the grant 

program in accordance with established Federal guidelines and allocating funds to local, 

regional, and other Mississippi government entities. 

Figure 1 illustrates the level of SHSP funding Mississippi received over a 5-year period. 

SHSP funding during FYs 2008 to 2010, the periods covered by our audit, averaged $6.4 

million per year. The State received its highest level of SHSP funding in FY 2010, but 

faced a nearly $4 million decline from 2010 levels in FY 2012. 

Figure 1. SHSP Funding Levels, FYs 2008 to 2012 

fffffffSource: FEMA. 

$6,180,000 $6,524,500 $6,613,200 $5,137,205

$2,801,316

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Mississippi SHSP Funding

Appendix A contains details on the audit’s objectives, scope, and methodology. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 2 OIG-13-72
 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Results of Audit

In some instances, the State distributed and spent SHSP funds in accordance with 

Federal laws and regulations. However, the State needs to improve in the following 

areas to enhance its management of SHSP grants: 

• Strategic planning 

• Grant fund allocation 

• Monitoring subgrantee activities and use of purchased equipment 

• Sole-source procurements 

• Property management controls and accountability 

• Personnel time charges. 

MOHS awarded contracts valued at $329,928 without competition. As a result, we 

consider these costs questioned. In addition, MOHS could not provide documentation 

supporting personnel-related reimbursements totaling $661,753. As a result, we 

consider these costs unsupported. 

Strategic Planning

The SAA developed a State homeland security strategy, but it was not adequate. 

The State of Mississippi’s homeland security strategy for FYs 2008 through 2010 

was not current and was not compliant with Federal guidelines. The State’s 

strategy, goals, and objectives were not time-limited. Additionally, the State 

could not provide evidence that it performed a risk assessment and capability 

review as a basis for its strategy and did not have a system in place to measure 

improvement toward preparedness. 

Strategic Plan 

We obtained a FEMA-approved State strategy dated FY 2008, and FEMA officials 

told us the FY 2008 plan also served as the strategy for FYs 2009 and 2010. 

However, the strategy contained goals and objectives with target completion 

dates that had already passed, and therefore was not current.

The DHS StatefandfUrbanfAreafHomelandfSecurityfStrategyfGuidancefonfAligningf

StrategiesfwithfthefNationalfPreparednessfGoal, dated July 22, 2005, (the 

Guidance) addresses updating State strategies. It recognizes the value of each 

State having an ongoing process of review and refinements as new lessons are 

learned, new priorities are realized, and new homeland security guidance is 

www.oig.dhs.gov 3 OIG-13-72
 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

issued. According to the Guidance, updated State and Urban Area Homeland 

Security strategies will then provide a context for performing the strategic 

exercise of asking “How are we organized?” and “How are we managing our 

homeland security programs?” 

Consequently, the FYs 2008, 2009, and 2010 SHSP grant applications were based 

on an outdated strategy. Requesting funds using an outdated strategy, which 

may not have properly prioritized needs and capabilities, does not assure FEMA 

that the State was using grant funds to address its most critical homeland 

security needs.

Strategy Goals and Objectives 

The SAA did not include time-limited goals and objectives in the State strategy. 

The strategy contained 11 goals with 92 objectives linked to National Priorities, 

and listed 220 steps to achieve the objectives. The State identified 28 milestones 

to reach the 92 objectives; however, 22 (79 percent) of those milestones listed 

completion dates prior to the date FEMA approved the strategy. The remaining 

six milestones (21 percent) were open-ended and did not specify anticipated 

completion dates for the objectives. 

According to the Guidance, an objective sets a tangible and measurable target 

level of performance over time against which actual achievement can be 

compared, including a goal expressed as a quantitative standard, value, or rate. 

The Guidance also states that an objective should be “time-limited” and contain 

a target date to identify when the objective will be achieved. 

Officials in the SAA office said that FEMA approved the FY 2008 strategy for 

FYs 2008–2010 with the current goals, objectives, and milestones, and therefore, 

the SAA office had not focused on changing them. However, they acknowledged 

that goals and objectives were important and indicated that they would wait for 

guidance from FEMA to assist in developing revised goals and objectives. 

Risk Assessment 

The Mississippi State homeland security strategy referenced a 2003 risk 

assessment along with a 2006 program and capability review. However, the 

State could not provide the 2003 risk assessment or the 2006 program and 

capability review. According to the State, the risk assessment data was the 

backdrop for comparative analysis against data assimilated in the FY 2006 

planning process. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 4 OIG-13-72
 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Without evidence of reliable data, such as a risk assessment, FEMA cannot be 

assured that it approved grants based on a State strategy that contained goals 

and objectives developed using verifiable, reliable data. 

Measurements Toward Preparedness 

The State did not have a system to measure improvement toward preparedness. 

FEMA requires States to submit an annual State Preparedness Report during the 

grant application and evaluation process. State officials prepared annual State 

Preparedness Reports for 2008 and 2009. According to State officials, they were 

not required to submit one for 2010. They added that over the last 4 years, 

FEMA has constantly changed the report and the performance measures it 

requests. In addition, State officials told us that although they prepared the 

report, they could not use it to measure preparedness because the reports do 

not track measurements toward preparedness from one year to the next. 

Neither FEMA nor the State has an adequate performance measurement system 

to evaluate operational effectiveness and grant funds administration. The State 

of Mississippi could not demonstrate quantifiable preparedness improvements 

and accomplishments because it did not set measurable target performance 

levels that could be compared to actual achievement. Without goals and 

objectives against which it can measure progress, the State cannot evaluate the 

effect of grant expenditures on its preparedness and response capabilities. 

The FY 2008 Mississippi homeland security strategy included a plan to evaluate 

progress on stated objectives via quarterly meetings with stakeholders and 

annual meetings to—

•	 Review the State’s success in achieving the previous year’s performance;

•	 Evaluate plans for the upcoming year relative to the performance 

achieved the previous year; 

•	 Discuss why specific goals were not met and what corrective actions are 

required; and 

•	 Report on financial operations and status. 

However, according to SAA officials, the State did not conduct an annual 

evaluation of the strategy for the grant period under review. Without an annual 

evaluation, it is difficult for the State to measure and report on improvements in 

preparedness and response and for FEMA to make informed funding decisions.

www.oig.dhs.gov 5	 OIG-13-72
 
 

 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs Directorate 

(GPD): 

Recommendation #1:

Prepare a revised strategy using a risk-based process with current goals and 

objectives that are time-limited.

Recommendation #2:

Submit a revised strategy for FEMA’s approval, and use that strategy to prepare 

future grant applications.

Recommendation #3: 

Develop a comprehensive performance measurement system for its homeland 

security strategies’ goals and objectives that includes target levels of performance

and the means to measure progress toward enhancing preparedness. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

FEMA and the State’s Response to Recommendations 1 and 2: FEMA and the 

State concurred with these recommendations. The Assistant Administrator of 

the GPD shall require MOHS to update its homeland security strategy, include 

time-limited goals in the strategy, and submit the revised strategy to GPD within 

6 months after issuance of this OIG final report. FEMA requested that these 

recommendations remain resolved and open pending completion, submission, 

and review of the strategy revisions. 

OIG Analysis: We consider FEMA’s actions responsive to the intent of 

recommendations 1 and 2. These recommendations will remain resolved and 

open until GPD reviews the revised strategy and provides a copy of the State’s 

updated homeland security strategy to the OIG. 

FEMA and the State’s Response to Recommendation 3: FEMA and the State 

concurred with this recommendation. FEMA provided a copy of the State’s 

Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) letter to the DHS 

NationalfDisasterfPreparednessfAct officials confirming that the State had 

completed its 2012 THIRA. FEMA also provided a copy of the redesigned State 

www.oig.dhs.gov 6 OIG-13-72
 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Preparedness Report (SPR) that will help demonstrate and track preparedness 

improvements over time. 

OIG Analysis: We consider FEMA’s actions responsive to the intent of 

recommendation 3. This recommendation is resolved and closed. 

Grant Fund Allocation Process 

The SAA could not provide evidence that it follows a collaborative risk-based 

approach during its grant allocation process. The SAA indicated that it depends 

on its own staff and the leaders of the three Mississippi Homeland Security Task 

Forces to prioritize needs and inform grant award decisions, and that efforts to 

include multiple stakeholders in the assessment, strategic planning, and 

allocation/award process were unsuccessful because too many stakeholders 

were involved. Therefore, the State’s grant allocation and award process does 

not involve a broad spectrum of stakeholders engaged in collaborative decision 

making to address the State’s most critical and urgent homeland security needs. 

Additionally, we spoke to some previous grant applicants who did not receive 

funding (nonawardees), who indicated that they were not involved in the 

allocation process and did not participate in developing the State strategy. 

The Guidance required the States to develop regional approaches for leveraging 

all available funding sources (Federal, State, local, and private) to build their 

capabilities. A collaborative risk-based approach involving broad stakeholder 

representation at all levels is critical to ensuring that the State identifies its most 

critical preparedness needs in line with its State homeland security strategy. 

Without the involvement of stakeholders throughout the State, Mississippi runs 

the risk of not accurately identifying gaps in capabilities, and funding programs 

that may not support appropriate goals and priorities for State and nationwide 

preparedness. In addition, applicants throughout the State are better served by 

an inclusive process that considers needs identified at the local level. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, GPD:

Recommendation #4:

Require the Mississippi Office of Homeland Security to identify and ensure all 

stakeholders are included in the grant allocation process. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 7 OIG-13-72
 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

FEMA and the State’s Response to Recommendation 4: FEMA and the State 

concurred with this recommendation. The GPD Assistant Administrator shall 

require, within 90 days of the issuance of this OIG final report, the State to 

establish a statewide governing body to coordinate grant resources and identify 

all members as required by the Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA). 

OIG Analysis: We consider FEMA’s actions responsive to the intent of 

recommendation 4. This recommendation is resolved and open until FEMA 

provides evidence that the State established the statewide governing body and 

identified its members.

Monitoring Subgrantee Activities and Use of Purchased Equipment 

The State did not conduct onsite monitoring of subgrantees’ compliance during 

FYs 2008 through 2010. The SAA indicated that it has a monitoring process that 

includes a monitoring document to collect information, but did not have

adequate staff to conduct onsite monitoring visits and to evaluate subgrantee 

use, safeguards, and controls over equipment. We reviewed the State’s five-step 

process and the monitoring document. We assessed whether the monitoring 

process was designed to evaluate reimbursements and expenditures; test for 

adequate procurement practices and property management compliance; and 

review administrative, programmatic, and fiscal requirements. 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 44 §13.40, MonitoringfandfReportingf

ProgramfPerformance, establishes requirements for monitoring grant program 

performance. Grantees are responsible for managing the day-to-day operations 

of grant- and subgrant-supported activities. Grantees must monitor grant- and 

subgrant-supported activities to ensure compliance with applicable Federal 

requirements and achievement of performance goals. Grantee monitoring must 

cover each program, function, or activity. Furthermore, according to Office of 

Management and Budget Circular A-133, Compliance Supplement, Part 3-M, 

grantees are responsible for monitoring subgrantees’ use of Federal awards 

through reporting, site visits, regular contact, and other means. 

Effective monitoring, including onsite monitoring, should provide reasonable 

assurance that the subgrantee administers Federal awards in compliance with 

laws and regulations as well as provisions of contracts or grant agreements.

Through onsite monitoring, we detected deficiencies in sole-source procurements 

and identified equipment that was being used for unauthorized purposes. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 8 OIG-13-72
 
 

 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, GPD:

Recommendation #5:

Require the Mississippi Office of Homeland Security to implement the current 

monitoring process to ensure that subgrantees comply with applicable Federal 

requirements. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

FEMA and the State’s Response to Recommendation 5: FEMA and the State 

concurred with this recommendation. The Assistant Administrator of GPD shall 

require MOHS to revise and update the site visit protocol to include a review for 

compliance with Federal requirements, submit a sample monitoring schedule for 

the next 12 months, and report that it completed these actions within 90 days of 

the issuance of this OIG final report. 

OIG Analysis: We consider FEMA’s actions responsive to the intent of 

recommendation 5. This recommendation is resolved and open until GPD 

provides evidence that MOHS completed these actions within 90 days of the 

issuance of this OIG final report. 

Sole-source Procurements 

We identified noncompliance with sole-source procurement requirements. For 

example, the Mississippi Board of Animal Health spent $311,775 for a State food 

and agriculture vulnerability assessment without conducting a cost analysis 

before it entered into the agreement. The Board of Animal Health paid $18,153 

for sole-source technical support services without prior State approval or a 

contractual agreement. 

CFR Title 44 §13.36(c)(1) requires that all procurement transactions be 

conducted in a manner providing full and open competition. When competition 

is not used, CFR Title 44 §13.36(f)(1) requires that a cost analysis be conducted 

when adequate price competition is lacking and for sole-source procurements.

Additionally, the State’s procurement manual requires agency heads to 

determine whether the price for services represents a fair market value when 

procurements are made.

www.oig.dhs.gov 9 OIG-13-72
 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

According to Board of Animal Health officials, the agreement for the vulnerability 

assessment was awarded without competition because the awardee, a State 

agency, was the only source capable of conducting the study. In addition, the 

costs incurred for technical services were paid to an unjustified sole source 

because the service provider developed the program that required service, and 

according to Board of Animal Health officials, was the only source capable of 

providing technical support. Furthermore, the State did not produce a 

contractual agreement to justify payments to this service provider. 

The Mississippi Board of Animal Health should not have awarded the 

vulnerability assessment agreement without competition or an adequate 

justification for sole-source procurement, and a cost analysis. As a result, the 

SAA did not have assurance that the cost paid was justified or whether the 

contract could have been awarded to an equally competent contractor at a 

lesser cost. Without determining fair market value for sole-source technical 

services and without a cost comparison for services or competition among other 

possible vendors, the State cannot be assured that the costs paid were fair and 

reasonable. Accordingly, we consider the $329,928 awarded to be a questioned 

cost. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, GPD:

Recommendation #6:

Require the Mississippi Office of Homeland Security to ensure that cost analyses 

are performed in accordance with Federal procurement regulations, and conduct 

fair market analysis as directed by the State for sole-source procurements. 

Recommendation #7: 

Require the Mississippi Office of Homeland Security to review the amounts paid 

for unjustified sole-source procurements and recover any unallowable costs of

the $329,928 in State Homeland Security Program grant funds. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

FEMA and the State’s Response to Recommendation 6: FEMA and the State 

concurred with this recommendation but indicated that FEMA agreed with the 

applicability of 44 CFR 13.36(a) to this finding rather than 44 CFR 13.36(c) as 

www.oig.dhs.gov 10 OIG-13-72
 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

referred to in the OIG draft report. Furthermore, FEMA concurred that it was 

not clear whether the procurements in question complied with 44 CFR 13.36(a). 

The GPD Assistant Administrator shall require MOHS to develop a procurement 

policy to comply with applicable Federal and State regulations and implement a 

plan that includes training for subgrantees, within 90 days of the receipt of this 

OIG final report. The policy will adhere to the requirements of 44 CFR 13.36(a) 

and State government procurement policies and procedures. 

OIG Analysis: We consider FEMA’s actions responsive to the intent of 

recommendation 6. This recommendation is resolved and open pending receipt 

of the procurement policy and implementation plan within 90 days of the receipt 

of this OIG final report. 

FEMA and the State’s Response to Recommendation 7: FEMA and the State 

concurred with this recommendation. FEMA indicated it was not clear whether 

the sole-source procurements identified in the OIG draft report were justified 

under 44 CFR 13.36(a). The GPD Assistant Administrator shall require MOHS to 

review the amounts paid for these sole-source procurements and submit 

documentation that supports the questioned procurements within 90 days of 

the receipt of this OIG final report. The Assistant Administrator shall require 

MOHS to pay back $329,928 if the MOHS review validates the sole-source 

procurements were not justified. 

OIG Analysis: We consider FEMA’s actions responsive to the intent of 

recommendation 7. This recommendation is resolved and open pending the 

results of MOHS’ review of documentation to support the sole-source 

procurements within 90 days of the receipt of this OIG final report. 

Property Management Controls and Accountability 

The State did not enforce property management requirements for inventory 

controls and ensure that subgrantees safeguarded equipment against loss or 

damage. CFR Title 44 §13.32(d) requires property records to be maintained and 

to include the property’s description, identification number, source, title holder, 

acquisition date, cost and percentage of Federal funds used in the cost, location, 

use and condition, and ultimate disposition. 

According to the SAA, it delegated responsibility for maintaining equipment 

inventories to subgrantees; however, subgrantee inventory systems were 

incomplete or inaccurate. During site visits, we determined that all 11 

subgrantees maintained equipment inventories, and the Department of Public 

www.oig.dhs.gov 11 OIG-13-72
 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Safety or the city/county maintained some of the subgrantee inventories. 

However, none of the 11 subgrantee inventory systems identified the 

percentage of Federal funds used to procure the equipment or included DHS 

markings on equipment, as required by the Guidance.

According to FEMA’s 2009 Grant Guidance, Part VI, Section B, 5.10, “Equipment 

Marking,” when practicable, any equipment purchased with grant funding shall 

be prominently marked “Purchased with funds provided by the U.S. Department 

of Homeland Security.” Furthermore, according to 2010 Guidance, Part VI, 

Section B, 5.11, awardees may consider marking equipment in order to facilitate 

their own audit processes, as well as Federal audits and monitoring visits. 

In addition to items not being marked with “Purchased with funds provided by 

the U.S. Department of Homeland Security,” some items were not tagged with a 

unique identification number. As a result, we could not determine whether 

some of the items were listed on the inventory sheet. For one subgrantee, none 

of the items inventoried had property tag numbers. 

For one subgrantee, serial/parcel numbers did not appear on the inventory sheet 

for four of the six items inventoried. For another subgrantee, the serial numbers 

on the spreadsheet did not match those on the equipment or were associated 

with the wrong item description. 

Some pilferable items were unsecured and not properly monitored. For 

example, one subgrantee ordered and distributed Web cameras to some of its 

staff. The subgrantee expected staff to sign out any new cameras; however, 

subgrantee officials admitted that staff did not always follow this procedure. 

Moreover, grantees and subgrantees must adequately safeguard property

procured with Federal funds to ensure that it is used solely for authorized 

purposes. One subgrantee used equipment for purposes other than those 

identified in the grant’s cooperative agreement. The subgrantee indicated that 

the intended purpose of the grant was for the purchase of equipment and 

training to respond to threats, including chemical, biological, radiological, 

nuclear, and explosives incidents. Authorized uses of the equipment included 

training and exercises. However, the subgrantee damaged a $100,000 boat 

while conducting a non-homeland security-related mission, and the boat 

capsized and sank. At the time of our visit, the boat had been out of service for 

more than 3 months. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 12 OIG-13-72
 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Figure 2 displays images of the boat (1) after it was first purchased, (2) while it 

was capsized, and (3) during recovery. 

Figure 2. Images of Boat After It Was First Purchased, While Capsized, and 

During Recovery 

Source:ffPearl River Water Supply District.

Without subgrantee inventory systems and controls, the State cannot ensure 

that subgrantees are complying with requirements to protect equipment against 

loss or damage or to prevent unauthorized use. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, GPD:

Recommendation #8:

Assist the Mississippi Office of Homeland Security to ensure that subgrantees 

maintain property and inventory records to support the retention and transfer of 

www.oig.dhs.gov 13 OIG-13-72
 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

equipment to subrecipients, and ensure accountability of sensitive or pilferable 

equipment.

Recommendation #9:

Assist the Mississippi Office of Homeland Security to implement procedures to 

identify equipment purchased with Homeland Security Grant Program funds. 

Recommendation #10:

Assist the Mississippi Office of Homeland Security to ensure that subgrantees 

use equipment purchased with grant funds only as intended. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

FEMA and the State’s Response to Recommendations 8 and 9: FEMA and the 

State concurred with these recommendations. The GPD Assistant Administrator 

shall require, within 90 days of the issuance of this final OIG report, MOHS to 

submit written policies and procedures to address requirements to maintain 

property and inventory records and identify equipment purchased with HSGP 

funds in compliance with 44 CFR 13.32(d) and internal guidelines. MOHS will 

also submit documentation on how it will correct the deficiencies with property 

records and communicate requirements to subgrantees more effectively. 

OIG Analysis: We consider FEMA’s actions responsive to the intent of 

recommendations 8 and 9. These recommendations are resolved and open 

pending receipt of MOHS’ written policies and procedures and its corrective 

action plan and documentation.

FEMA and the State’s Response to Recommendation 10: FEMA and the State 

concurred with this recommendation. The GPD Assistant Administrator shall 

require MOHS and subgrantees to comply with 44 CFR 13.32(c) regarding the use 

of equipment purchased with grant funds. Additionally, the GPD Administrator 

shall require, within 90 days of the receipt of this final OIG report, MOHS to 

submit a sample monitoring schedule covering the next 12 months and an 

updated monitoring policy that includes a process for documenting and resolving 

any issues with the misuse of equipment. 

OIG Analysis: We consider FEMA’s actions responsive to the intent of 

recommendation 10. This recommendation is resolved and open pending 

receipt of MOHS’ sample monitoring plan covering the next 12 months, an 

www.oig.dhs.gov 14 OIG-13-72
 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

updated monitoring policy including a process for equipment misuse, and 

evidence of any additional steps FEMA takes to ensure compliance with 

requirements for use of equipment purchased with grant funds. 

Personnel Time Charges 

The SAA improperly accounts for funds used for salary and wage expenditures, 

which are allowable management and administration (M&A) expenses. MOHS 

employees support several DHS grants, but do not have a system to identify time 

devoted to each grant. 

CFR Title 2, Part 225, Appendix B, paragraph 8.h.(4), requires grantees to 

maintain appropriate documentation for employees working on multiple 

activities. Specifically, “Where employees work on multiple activities or cost 

objectives, a distribution of their salaries or wages will be supported by 

personnel activity reports or equivalent documentation which meets the 

standards in subsection 8.h.(5) of this appendix unless a statistical sampling 

system (see subsection 8.h.(6) of this appendix) or other substitute system has 

been approved by the cognizant Federal agency. Such documentary support will 

be required where employees work on: (a) More than one Federal award ....” 

An independent audit firm conducting work for the Mississippi State Auditor 

identified this issue previously.1

 This audit resulted in questioned costs of 

$845,380, representing payments for the total dollar amount of general and 

administrative salaries for MOHS personnel during the State’s fiscal year ending 

June 30, 2011. MOHS does not have a system that identifies employee time 

devoted to each specific grant. In response, MOHS officials said that MOHS 

would work on a corrective action. However, MOHS had not implemented a 

corrective action at the time we completed our fieldwork. 

During our review of MOHS payroll transactions reimbursed in July 2011, we 

identified the same condition regarding improper personnel time charges for 

multiple grants that were unsupported by personnel activity reports or 

equivalent documentation that meets the standards in 2 CFR 225. Specifically, 

we confirmed that in FY 2009, MOHS employees who performed work in support 

of various grant funds, including SHSP, were paid from a single source—the 

Interoperable Communications grant funds. According to the reimbursement 

1

 State of Mississippi Single Audit Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2011, Schedule of Findings and 

Questioned Costs, Part 3: Federal Award Findings and Questioned Costs, U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security, http://www.osa.state.ms.us/documents/single-audit/11sar.pdf, pp. 87-88/136. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 15 OIG-13-72
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

documents in the award files, salaries, undisclosed personnel services contracts, 

and other fees accounted for $661,753 of the $797,000 FY 2008 SHSP grant to 

MOHS. However, the SAA did not maintain timesheets in the files or provide 

timesheets to support the salary payments or other personnel-related expenses. 

The FY 2009 grant file contained no reimbursement documents related to 

personnel time charges. 

The SAA has not developed an accounting methodology that properly accounts 

for charges to M&A. Without a system to allocate time worked on different 

projects, the SAA cannot validate that MOHS personnel charged time to the 

appropriate grant and properly used SHSP grant funds for M&A expenses. As a 

result, we question salaries and other personnel-related costs of $661,753 

reimbursed against the FY 2008 SHSP grant. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, GPD:

Recommendation #11:

Assist the Department of Public Safety and Mississippi Office of Homeland 

Security to develop and implement a time-tracking and payroll-distribution 

process that will allow employees to track their time by Federal award so salary 

and wage distribution can be made to the appropriate grants and cost 

objectives. 

Recommendation #12: 

Assist the Department of Public Safety and Mississippi Office of Homeland 

Security to provide documentation that supports the questioned personnel time 

charges of $661,753 for FY 2008 and recover the amount not supported. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

FEMA and the State’s Response to Recommendation 11: FEMA and the State 

concurred with this recommendation. The GPD Assistant Administrator shall 

require, within 90 days of receipt of this OIG final report, MOHS to develop and 

implement a time-tracking and payroll-distribution policy that appropriately 

accounts for funds used for salary and wage expenditures. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 16 OIG-13-72
 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

OIG Analysis: We consider FEMA’s actions responsive to the intent of 

recommendation 11. This recommendation is resolved and open pending 

receipt of MOHS’ policy for time tracking and payroll distribution.

FEMA and the State’s Response to Recommendation 12: FEMA and the State 

concurred with this recommendation. The GPD Assistant Administrator shall 

require, within 90 days of the receipt of OIG final report, MOHS to submit to 

FEMA documentation that supports the $661,753 in questioned personnel time 

charges for FY 2008. If the documentation does not support the charges, the 

Assistant Administrator shall require MOHS to pay back the unallowable 

personnel time charges. 

OIG Analysis: We consider FEMA’s actions responsive to the intent of 

recommendation 12. This recommendation is resolved and open pending 

receipt of documentation to support the $661,753 in questioned personnel time 

charges within 90 days of receipt of this OIG final report. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 17 OIG-13-72
 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix A 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

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

established by the HomelandfSecurityfActfoff2002 (Public Law 107-296) by amendment 

to the InspectorfGeneralfActfoff1978. 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. 

Public Law 110-53, ImplementingfRecommendationsfoffthef9/11fCommissionfActfoff

2007, requires the DHS OIG to audit individual States’ management of SHSP and Urban 

Areas Security Initiative grants. This report responds to the reporting requirement for 

the State of Mississippi. 

The objective of the audit was to determine whether the State of Mississippi distributed 

and spent SHSP grant funds (1) effectively and efficiently and (2) in compliance with 

applicable Federal laws and regulations and DHS guidelines. We also addressed the 

extent to which grant funds enhanced the State’s ability to prevent, prepare for, protect 

against, and respond to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made

disasters. 

The scope of this audit included the plans developed by the State to improve 

preparedness and response to all types of hazards, goals, and objectives set in those 

plans; measurement of progress toward the goals; and assessments of performance 

improvement resulting from this measurement. 

Together, HSGP and its interrelated grant programs fund a range of preparedness 

activities, including planning, organization, equipment purchase, training, exercises, and 

management and administration costs. However, we reviewed only SHSP funding, 

equipment, and supported programs for compliance. Table 1 shows the scope of the 

audit, which included SHSP grant awards for FYs 2008, 2009, and 2010. 

Table 1. State of Mississippi’s SHSP Awards (FYs 2008 through 2010) 

Grant Program FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Total

State Homeland Security Program Grant $6,180,000 $6,524,500 $6,613,200 $19,317,700

Source: FEMA. 

The audit methodology included work at FEMA headquarters, State of Mississippi 

offices, and various subgrantee locations in the northern, central, and southern regions 

of the State that received grants. We also selected grant nonawardees for survey. To 

www.oig.dhs.gov 18 OIG-13-72
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

achieve our audit objective, we analyzed data, reviewed documentation, and 

interviewed nonawardees and key State and local officials directly involved in the 

management and administration of the State’s HSGP. In addition, to ensure the 

accuracy of grant obligation and expenditure data reported in the State’s Biannual 

Strategy Implementation Reports for FYs 2008, 2009, and 2010, we verified the 

information by comparing report data against source documents in grant award files 

maintained by the SAA.

Table 2 shows the sampled grant award files from State agencies, designated task 

forces, and local government subgrantees that received SHSP grants awarded in 

FYs 2008, 2009, or 2010. 

Table 2. Subgrantee Sample Selection (FYs 2008 through 2010)

Subgrantees Grant 

Amount Grant Description

City of Tupelo $144,750

Bomb squad, City of Tupelo/Lee County Task 

Force funds

City of McComb and Pike County

Regional Response Team 744,500 Mississippi Task Force Logistics Support 

Harrison County Sheriff’s Office 30,000 Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program 

Mississippi Board of Animal Health 550,000 

Mississippi vulnerability and risk assessment as it 

relates to Mississippi agricultural and food 

sectors 

Mississippi State Fire Academy 225,000 Mississippi State Fire Academy

Mississippi Fusion Center 900,000 Mississippi Fusion Center 

Mississippi Office of Homeland

Security 2,102,600 DHS grants management and administration 

Task Force 1 – Desoto, Greenwood, 

Tupelo 1,163,931 

Desoto County Task Force funds, Desoto County 

Regional Response funds, Desoto County funds

Task Force 2 – Columbus, Meridian, 

Jackson 496,183

City of Columbus/Lowndes County Regional 

Response funds, City of Columbus/Lowndes 

County Task Force funds, City of Columbus funds

Task Force 3 – Harrison County, 

Hattiesburg, McComb 94,180 

Task Force and Regional Response Teams Award 

for Mississippi’s Southeast region 

Pearl River Water Supply District 135,000 

Enhance response capability to water-based

critical infrastructure threats

Total of Subgrantee Awards

Reviewed $ 6,586,144 

Source: MOHS. 

Figure 3 shows the location, by county, of the 11 subgrantees visited. At each location, 

we interviewed officials responsible for grant award oversight, reviewed documentation 

supporting State and subgrantee management of grant funds, and physically inspected 

www.oig.dhs.gov 19 OIG-13-72
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

selected equipment procured with grant funds. We surveyed eight grant nonawardees 

as well. 

Figure 3. Locations, by County, of the 11 Subgrantees Visited

Source:ffOIG

www.oig.dhs.gov 20 OIG-13-72
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

We conducted this performance audit between March and September 2012 pursuant to 

the InspectorfGeneralfActfoff1978, 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 upon our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based upon our 

audit objectives.

www.oig.dhs.gov 21 OIG-13-72
 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

 

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

U.S. IIqmrtm.,,,I or ., I~1H1 S""lIril)' 

Wnshingto". DC 20472 

<.i"o .,0; FEMA 

MEMORANDUM FOR, Anne L. Ri chards 

Assistant Inspector General for Audits 

Office or Inspec tor General 

FROM: David J. Kaurman ~~(. t 

Associate Administrmor ror , b--') 

Policy. Program Analysis and Intcmationa l Affairs 

SUBJECT, FEMA Response to 0 10 Draft Report, "The Slltte of Missi~'si{Jpi 's 

k lwwgemenr afStale !-Iomeland Secllrity Program GralllS 

Awarded dl/ring Fiscal rears 2008 Throllgh 2010 - For O.Dicial 

Use Dilly· DIG Projecl No. 12-IIO-A UD-FEII4A ". 

Thank you ror the opportunity to comment 0 11 OIG Draft Report. "71te Slale ofl\;lississippi's 

J\4ll11agemellt ofSlllre Homeland Security Program Grlmls Awarded during Fiscal )'eal"s 2008 

Through 2010 - For 0Bif.:il" Use Only - OIG Pro jeer No. 12·IIO·AUD-FEMA". The findings in 

the report will be used to enhance the program's overall effectivcness. Thc rollowing arc our 

responses 10 the recommendations l'Or implementation: 

O IG Rccornmclldlllion I: \Vc recommcnd thc Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs 

Dircetorate (GPO) require the Mississippi Otlice o f Homeland Security (MOl-IS) revise its State 

Homeland Security Strategy using a risk-based process with current goals and objec tivcs Ihm are 

timc-limitcd. 

FEMA Res ponsc: Concu r. (See consofit/llted ~po sefor recommendation I & 2 below) 

OIG Recommendation 2: We recommend the Assisinnt Administrator, G PO rcquirc MOHS 

submit the rcvised strategy for FEMA's approval and usc that strntcgy to preparc ruture grant 

appiicaa ions. 

FEMA Response to Recomlll end:lIions I & 2: Concur. FEMA has nevcr required grantces 10 

dcvclop or rcvisc Statc Homeland Security Stratcgics lIsing a risk-based proccss. Howcver. thc 

Assistant Administrator or thc G PD sha ll requirc the SWle of Mississippi Office o r Homeland 

Sccurity (MOHS) to updatc its Homeland Sccurity Stratcgy. e nsuring the stratcgy includcs 

measurable targct leve ls of pcrformuncc_ as well as objectivcs that arc specific. mcnsurablc. 

achicvablc. rcsults-oriented. and time-limitcd. and a n appropriate evaluation. The State of 

Mississippi shall submit the rcviscd Homeland Security Strategy to GPO for review within six 

months alicr issunnce or the OIG final rcport. 

FEMA requcsts this recommcndation bc resolved and open pending the comp lc tion. submission. 

and review of thc stratcgy revisions. 

,,"'WW.r.,ma.aov 

www.oig.dhs.gov 22 OIG-13-72
 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

 

OIG Recommendation 3: We recommend the Assistant Administrator, GPD require MOHS 

develop a comprehensive measurement system for its Homeland Security Strategies' goals and 

objectives that include target levels of performance and the means to measure progress toward 

enhancing preparedness. 

FEMA Response: Concur. The FEMA National Preparedness Directorate (NPD) developed 

processes to measure core capabilities in accordance with the National Preparedness Goal 

pursuant to PPD-S. The State completed the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk 

Assessment (THIRA) and submitted it to FEMA by December 31, 2012. The THIRA will be 

used to create a baseline and targets for Fiscal Year 2013 and beyond. FEMA has also 

redesigned the State Preparedness Report (SPR) that will help states demonstrate and track 

preparedness improvement over time. Given the State's compliance with these requirements, we 

believe that their actions satisfied the intent of the recommendation. See attachment "An 

Mississippi letter confirming completion and submission ofTHIRA and attachment "B" 

Mississippi SPR. 

FEMA requests that the recommendation be resolved and closed. 

OIG Recommendation 4: We recommend the Assistant Administrator GPD require MOHS 

identify and ensure all stakeholders are included in the grant allocation process. 

FEMA Response: Concur. The Assistant Administrator ofGDP shall require the State of 

Mississippi to establish a statewide governing body such as a senior advisory committee as 

outlined in the Homeland Security Grant Program Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA), 

to coordinate grant resources and identify all members as required by the FOA within 90 days of 

receipt of this report. 

FEMA requests that the recommendation be resolved and open pending completion of the stated 

corrective action. 

OIG Recommendation 5: We recommend the Assistant Administrator, GPD require MOHS to 

implement the current monitoring process to ensure that subgrantees comply with applicable 

Federal requirements. 

FEMA Response: Concur. The Assistant Administrator of GPD shall require MOHS to revise 

and update the site visit protocol to include a review of subgrantee compliance with Federal 

requirements. MOHS should also submit a sample monitoring schedule to encompass the next 

12 months. MOHS shall report to GPD once it has revised and updated the site visit protocol no 

later than 90 days after the issuance of the OIG final report. 

FEMA requests this recommendation be resolved and open pending the completion of the 

corrective action. 

OIG Recommendation 6: We recommend the Assistant Administrator, GPD require MOHS to 

ensure that cost analyses are perfonned in accordance with Federal procurement regulations, and 

conduct fair market analysis as directed by the State for sole-source procurements. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 23 OIG-13-72
 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

 

FEMA Response: Concur. The findings in the draft report indicate that the Mississippi Board 

of Animal Health. a state agency. entered into two sole source contracts in contradiction of 44 

CFR § 13.36(c). FEMA notes however that, as a state agency, the Mississippi Board of Animal 

Health is not subject to § 13.36(c), but rather is subject to the requirements of 44 CFR § 13.36(a). 

44 CFR § 13.36(a) requires that States that make procurements with federal funds "follow the 

same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds," and further 

provides that paragraphs (b)-{i) of § 13.36 shall apply to non·state grantees and subgrantees, 

Consequently, FEMA's view is that 44 CFR § 13,36(a) is more appropriately applicable to 

procurements made by the Mississippi Board of Animal Health, rather than 44 CFR § 13,36(c), 

Nevertheless, FEMA concurs that it is not clear whether the procurements in question complied 

with 44 CFR § 13.36(a), Therefore, the Assistant Administrator of GPD shall require MOHS to 

develop and implement a procurement policy to comply with applicable Federal, and State, 

regulations within 90 days of receipt of this report. The policy will adhere to procedures set 

forth in the applicable provisions of 44 CFR § 13.36 as well as State govemment policies and 

procedures, The implementation plan for this policy must involve training for subgrantees, 

FEMA requests this recommendation be resolved and open pending implementation of the stated 

corrective actions. 

OIG Recommendation 7: We recommend the Assistant Administrator, GPD require MOHS to 

review the amounts paid for unjustified sale source procurements, and recover any unallowable 

costs of the $329,928 in State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) grant funds, 

FEMA Response: Concur. Based on the findings in the draft report, it is not clear whether the 

sole source procurements at issue were justified under 44 CFR § 13.36(a). The Assistant 

Administrator of GPD shall require MOHS to review the amounts paid for these sale source 

procurements and submit documentation that supports the questioned procurements within 90 

days of receipt of this report. If the finding is validated, the Assistant Administrator shall require 

that MOHS pay back $329,928 in unjustified sole source procurements, 

FEMA requests this recommendation be resolved and open pending implementation of the stated 

corrective actions. 

OIG Recommendation 8: We recommend the Assistant Administrator, GPD require MOHS to 

ensure that subgrantees maintain property and inventory records to support the retention and 

transfer of equipment to subrecipients and ensure accountability of sensitive or pilferable 

equipment. 

FEMA Response: Concur. (See consolidated response for recommendation 8 & 9 below) 

OIG Recommendation 9: We recommend the Assistant Administrator, GPD require MOHS to 

implement procedures to identify equipment purchased with Homeland Security Grant Program 

funds, 

 

www.oig.dhs.gov 24 OIG-13-72
 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

 

FEMA Response to Recommendations 8 & 9: Concur. Within 90 days of issuance of the 

final report, the Assistant Administrator of GPD shall require MOHS to submit written policies 

and procedures addressing the requirement provisions of 44 CFR 13.32(d) as well as any internal 

guidelines along with documentation detailing how MOHS will correct the deficiencies outlined 

in the final audit report and communicate requirements with subgrantees more effectively. 

FEMA requests this recommendation be considered resolved and open pending the corrective 

actions stated above. 

OIG Recommendation 10: We recommend the Assistant Administrator, GPD require MOHS 

to ensure that subgrantees use equipment purchased with grant funds only as intended. 

FEMA Response: Concur. The Assistant Administrator of GPD shall require that MOHS and 

subgrantees use equipment purchased with grant funds as required by 44 eFR § 13.32(c). The 

Assistant Administrator of GPD shall require MOHS to submit a sample monitoring schedule to 

encompass the next 12 months and an updated monitoring policy to include a process for 

documenting and resolving any issues with the misuse of equipment within 90 days of receipt of 

this report. 

FEMA requests this recommendation be resolved and open pending implementation of the stated 

corrective actions. 

OIG Recommendation 11: We recommend the Assistant Administrator, GPD require MOHS 

and the Department of Public Safety (DPS) to develop and implement a time tracking and 

payroll distribution process that will allow all employees to track their time by Federal award so 

salary and wage distribution can be made to the appropriate grants and cost objectives. 

FEMA Response: Concur. The Assistant Admini~trator of GPD shall require MOHS to 

develop and implement a time tracking and payroll distribution policy that appropriately 

accounts for funds used for salary and wage expenditures within 90 days of receipt of this report. 

FEMA requests that this recommendation be resolved and open pending implementation of the 

stated corrective action. 

OIG Recommendation 12: We recommend the Assistant Administrator, GPD require MOHS 

and the DPS to provide documentation that supports the questioned personnel time charges of 

$661 ,753 for FY 2008, and recover the amount not supported. 

FEMA Response: Concur. The Assistant Administrator of GPD shall require the MOHS to 

submit documentation that supports the questioned personnel time charges within 90 days of 

receipt of this report. If the finding is validated, then the Assistant Administrator shall require 

that MOHS pay back $661,753 in unallowable personnel time charges to FEMA. 

FEMA requests this recommendation be resolved and open pending implementation of the stated 

corrective actions. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 25 OIG-13-72
 
 

 

 

Again, we thank you for the work that you and your team did to inform us of measures we can 

take to enhance the program's overall effectiveness. We look forward to OIG's final report for 

"The State oj Mississippi's Management aJState Homeland Security Program Grants Awarded 

during Fiscal Years 200S Through 2010 - For Official Use Only OIG Project No. 12-110-AUDFEMA ". Please direct any questions regarding this response to Gary McKeon, FEMA's Chief 

Audit Liaison, at 202-646-1308. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 26 OIG-13-72
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 
 

 

 

The Governor of 

Mississippi

The Department of 

Public Safety

The Mississippi 

Office of Homeland 

Security

Executive Director

Office Director

Fusion Center

Deputy 

Administrator

Office Director

Operations

Office Director

Training

Office Director

Grants 

Administrator

. 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix C 

State of Mississippi Homeland Security Governance

Source: MOHS

www.oig.dhs.gov 27 OIG-13-72
 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix D 

Homeland Security Grant Program 

State Homeland Security Program grant supports the implementation of State 

homeland security strategies to address the identified planning, organization, 

equipment, training, and exercise needs to prevent, protect against, respond to, and 

recover from acts of terrorism and other catastrophic events. 

Urban Areas Security Initiative Program funds address the unique planning, 

organization, equipment, training, and exercise needs of high-threat, high-density urban 

areas and assists them in building an enhanced and sustainable capacity to prevent, 

protect against, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism.

Metropolitan Medical Response System Program supports the integration of 

emergency management, health, and medical systems into a coordinated response to 

mass casualty incidents caused by any hazard. Successful Metropolitan Medical 

Response System Program grantees reduce the consequences of a mass casualty 

incident during the initial period of a response by augmenting existing local operational 

response systems before an incident occurs.

Citizen Corps Program brings community and government leaders together to 

coordinate the involvement of community members and organizations in emergency 

preparedness, planning, mitigation, response, and recovery.

Operation Stonegarden funds are intended to enhance cooperation and coordination 

among local, tribal, territorial, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies in a joint 

mission to secure United States borders along routes of ingress from international 

borders to include travel corridors in States bordering Mexico and Canada, as well as 

States and territories with international water borders. This program was not included 

in the FYs 2008 and 2009 Homeland Security Grant Program. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 28 OIG-13-72
 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix E 

Major Contributors to This Report 

Donald Bumgardner, Director 

Beverly Bush, Audit Manager

Elaine Ferguson, Auditor-in-Charge 

Armando Lastra, Auditor 

Sue Vernier, Auditor 

Vashti Gordon, Program Analyst 

Kevin Dolloson, Communications Analyst 

Maryann Pereira, Referencer

www.oig.dhs.gov 29 OIG-13-72
 
 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix F 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff 

Deputy Chief of Staff

General Counsel 

Executive Secretary 

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 

Acting Chief Privacy Officer 

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Administrator 

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 

www.oig.dhs.gov 30 OIG-13-72
 
 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES 

To obtain additional copies of this document, please call us at (202) 254-4100, fax your 

request to (202) 254-4305, or e-mail your request to our Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) Office of Public Affairs at: DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@oig.dhs.gov. 

For additional information, visit our website at: www.oig.dhs.gov, or follow us on Twitter 

at: @dhsoig. 

OIG HOTLINE 

To expedite the reporting of alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any 

other kinds of criminal or noncriminal misconduct relative to Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) programs and operations, please visit our website at www.oig.dhs.gov 

and click on the red tab titled "Hotline" to report. You will be directed to complete and 

submit an automated DHS OIG Investigative Referral Submission Form. Submission 

through our website ensures that your complaint will be promptly received and 

reviewed by DHS OIG. 

Should you be unable to access our website, you may submit your complaint in writing 

to: DHS Office of Inspector General, Attention: Office of Investigations Hotline, 245 

Murray Drive, SW, Building 410/Mail Stop 2600, Washington, DC, 20528; or you may 

call 1 (800) 323-8603; or fax it directly to us at (202) 254-4297. 

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