Department of Homeland Security
 

The State of Rhode Island’s Management of State 

Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas 

Security Initiative Grants Awarded During 

Fiscal Years 2008 Through 2010 

OIG-13-16 December 2012
 
 

 

                

        

   

     

       

   

       

ards

spector General for Audits

               

             

             

    

  

                             

                     

                      

                     

                         

                   

                         

                    

                        

                        

                       

                        

                       

       

                       

                     

                    

             

                             

               

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

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

DEC 11 2012

MEMORANDUM FOR:	 David J. Kaufman

Acting Assistant Administrator

Grant Programs Directorate

Federal Emergency Management Agency

FROM:	 Anne L. Rich

Assistant In

SUBJECT:	 The State of Rhode Island’s Management of State

Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas Security

Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2008

Through 2010

Attached for your action is our final report, The State of Rhode Island’s Management of

State Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded

During Fiscal Years 2008 Through 2010. We incorporated the formal comments from

the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Office of Policy and Program Analysis and

the State of Rhode Island’s Emergency Management Agency in the final report.

The report contains six recommendations aimed at improving the overall effectiveness

of the State of Rhode Island’s management of State Homeland Security Program and

Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants. Your office concurred with all

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

we consider the 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 of the

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 Mark Bell, Deputy Assistant

Inspector General for Audits, at (202) 254‐4100.
 

 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Table of Contents 

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

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

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

Improvements Are Needed To Enhance the State of 

Rhode Island’s Grant Management Practices ........................................................ 3 

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

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

Appendixes

Appendix A: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ........................................... 14 

Appendix B: FEMA Management Comments to the Draft Report .................... 18 

Appendix C: State of Rhode Island Management Comments to the 

Draft Report .................................................................................. 21 

Appendix D: Description of Homeland Security Grant Program ....................... 25 

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

Appendix F: Report Distribution ...................................................................... 27 

Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FY fiscal year 

HSGP Homeland Security Grant Program 

NPD National Preparedness Directorate 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

SAA State Administrative Agency 

SHSP State Homeland Security Program 

SOP standard operating procedures 

UASI Urban Areas Security Initiative 

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

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Executive Summary

Public Law 110-53, ImplementingfRecommendationsfoffthef9/11fCommissionfActfoff

2007, as amended, 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 Rhode Island. 

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

State Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative 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 manmade disasters. 

The State was awarded $35,209,566 in Homeland Security Grant Program funds from 

fiscal years 2008 to 2010. This included $33,851,300 in State Homeland Security 

Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative grants that were subawarded to a total of 

one grantee and 48 subgrantees. Among the State’s subgrantees are cities, towns, and 

State agencies. 

Generally, the State of Rhode Island distributed and spent the awards effectively, 

efficiently, and in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. To its credit, the

State’s desk monitoring has succeeded in catching and correcting some noncompliance. 

The State has also established effective working groups for communicating with and 

providing guidance to subgrantees. However, improvements are needed in the 

following areas: 

•	 Developing a comprehensive strategy with measurable objectives; 

•	 Developing a performance measurement system to assess emergency preparedness; 

•	 Complying with procurement and inventory requirements; and 

•	 Strengthening onsite monitoring activities to ensure subgrantee compliance with 

grant requirements. 

These issues exist because the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the 

Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency have not provided sufficient guidance 

and oversight for the grant process. We made six recommendations for FEMA to initiate 

improvements which, if implemented, should help strengthen grant program 

management, performance, and oversight. FEMA concurred with all six 

recommendations.

www.oig.dhs.gov 1 	 OIG-13-16 
 

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, deter, respond to, and 

recover from terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies. Within DHS, 

FEMA is responsible for administering the HSGP. FEMA supports preparedness by 

developing policies, ensuring that adequate plans are in place and validated, defining 

capabilities required to address threats, providing resources and technical assistance to 

States, and synchronizing preparedness efforts throughout the Nation. Appendix D 

provides a detailed description of the interrelated grant programs that constitute the 

HSGP. 

HSGP guidance requires the Governor of each State and Territory to designate a State 

Administrative Agency (SAA) to apply for and administer grant funding awarded under 

the HSGP. The SAA is the only entity eligible to formally apply for HSGP funds. FEMA

requires that the SAA be responsible for obligating grant funds to local units of 

government and other designated recipients within 45 days after the award of funds. 

The Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency is the SAA designated to provide 

administrative oversight over the HSGP. This includes responsibility over grant funding 

for State and local disbursement, statewide interoperability, the intelligence fusion 

center, and emergency plans and response teams. 

The State of Rhode Island was awarded $35,209,566 in HSGP funds from fiscal years 

(FYs) 2008 through 2010. This included $33,851,300 in State Homeland Security 

Program (SHSP) and Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) grants that were subawarded 

to 48 subgrantees and the SAA. The State’s subgrantees are cities, towns, and State 

agencies. Appendix A provides a list of the 48 subgrantees. 

Public Law 110-53, ImplementingfRecommendationsfoffthef9/11fCommissionfActfoff

2007, as amended, requires DHS OIG to audit individual States’ management of SHSP 

and UASI grants. This report responds to the reporting requirement for the State of 

Rhode Island. Appendix A provides details on the objectives, scope, and methodology of 

this audit. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 2 OIG-13-16 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Results of Audit 

Improvements Are Needed To Enhance the State of Rhode Island’s 

Grant Management Practices 

Generally, the State of Rhode Island distributed and spent the grant awards 

efficiently, effectively, and in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. 

However, improvements are needed in the following areas: developing a 

comprehensive strategy with measurable objectives, developing a performance 

measurement system to assess emergency preparedness, complying with 

procurement and inventory requirements, and strengthening onsite monitoring 

activities to ensure subgrantee compliance with grant requirements. 

These issues exist because FEMA and the Rhode Island Emergency Management 

Agency need to provide more guidance and oversight for the grant process. 

Security Strategy Objectives 

The State Homeland Security Strategy did not provide measurable goals and 

objectives with a basis to evaluate the progress it has made on its preparedness,

prevention, response, and recovery capabilities. The 2009 State Homeland 

Security Strategy included five goals, 37 objectives, and 147 implementation 

steps. The strategy’s goals and objectives did not include target dates of 

achievement. As a result, the State is unable to demonstrate quantifiable

improvement and accomplishments to reduce its vulnerability to terrorism and 

natural disasters. 

In July 2005, FEMA’s National Preparedness Directorate (NPD) released guidance 

to the States on how to align their State Homeland Security Strategy with the 

National Preparedness Goal. The DepartmentfoffHomelandfSecurityfStatefandf

UrbanfAreafHomelandfSecurityfStrategyfGuidancefonfAligningfStrategiesfwithfthef

NationalfPreparednessfGoal requires States to include measurable goals and 

objectives in their strategies, and mandates that an objective should be— 

•	 Specific, detailed, particular, and focused—helping to identify what is to be 

achieved and accomplished; 

•	 Measurable—quantifiable, providing a standard for comparison, and 

identifying a specific achievable result; 

www.oig.dhs.gov 3 	 OIG-13-16 
 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

•	 Achievable—not beyond a State, region, jurisdiction, or locality’s ability;

•	 Results-oriented—identifying a specific outcome; and 

•	 Time-limited—having a target date to identify when the objective will be 

achieved. 

Table 1 provides examples of shortcomings in the State’s Strategy objectives. 

Table 1. Shortcomings in the State’s Strategy Objectives 

Goal Objective Shortcomings 

1. Prepare for allhazards response 

missions.

1.1 Planning: Preparedness plans 

incorporate an accurate hazard analysis and 

risk assessment and ensure that capabilities 

required to prevent, protect, and mitigate

against, respond to, and recover from 

terrorist attacks and catastrophic natural 

disasters are available when and where they 

are needed.

The objective is

not—

•	 Specific 

•	 Measureable 

•	 Time-limited

1. Prepare for all- 1.4 Community Preparedness and The objective is 

hazards response Participation: There is a structure and a not—

missions. process for ongoing collaboration between • Specific 

government and nongovernment resources • Measureable 

at all levels. • Time-limited

2. Prevent, preempt, 

and deter acts of 

terrorism.

2.2 Intelligence Analysis and Production:

Timely, accurate, and actionable 

intelligence/information products are

produced in support of prevention, 

awareness, deterrence, response, and 

continuity planning operations. 

The objective is 

not—

•	 Specific 

•	 Measureable 

•	 Time-limited

4. Respond in an 

immediate, effective, 

and coordinated 

manner, focused on 

the victims of the 

attack.

4.2 Emergency Operations Center 

Management: The event is effectively 

managed through multiagency coordination 

for a preplanned or no-notice event through 

the Emergency Operations Center 

Management.

The objective is 

not—

•	 Specific 

•	 Measureable 

•	 Time-limited

Source: DHS OIG analysis of Rhode Island’s 2011 State Homeland Security Strategy.
 

According to FEMA and State officials, FEMA has not provided comments on the 

State’s Homeland Security Strategies to ensure that they meet FEMA guidance 

and include measurable goals and objectives, which contributed to the identified 

shortcomings. For example, the State was not aware that it was required to 

develop target dates for completing objectives in the SHSP Strategy. An NPD 

www.oig.dhs.gov 4 	 OIG-13-16 
 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Senior Policy Analyst also indicated that moving forward, FEMA plans to issue 

improved strategy guidance and develop a process for providing feedback to 

States on their strategies. NPD plans to release the updated guidance on 

strategic planning by January 2013. 

Performance Measures

Rhode Island does not have sufficient performance measures to use as a basis 

for determining progress toward its security strategy goals and objectives. 

Although the State has attempted to measure the results of SHSP and UASI funds 

through a variety of reports, performance assessments, and strategy plans, it has 

not gathered results-oriented data that can be measured to show the impact of 

the grant funds. 

ThefGovernmentfPerformancefandfResultsfActfoff1993 initiated program 

performance reform across the Federal Government by requiring all agencies to 

set program goals, measure program performance against those goals, and 

report publicly on their progress. FEMA’s StatefandfUrbanfAreafHomelandf

SecurityfStrategyfGuidancefonfAligningfStrategiesfwithfthefNationalfPreparednessf

Goal provides the States with emergency preparedness priorities and target 

capability needs; however, it does not give them specific guidance for developing 

performance measures. 

Congress has recognized that FEMA’s guidance has not assisted the States with 

developing adequate performance measures. As a result, under Public Law 111-

271, Congress required the National Academy of Public Administration to assist 

FEMA with a plan that would require a specific timetable for developing 

quantifiable performance measures and metrics to assess the effectiveness of 

the grant programs.

The State and the subgrantees have attempted to demonstrate the positive 

affect of grant-funded projects. For example, the State’s 2010 Performance and 

Accountability Report discussed its accomplishments toward satisfying mission 

requirements made possible by grant funding. UASI grants enabled nine urban 

area communities to purchase equipment and conduct planning activities that 

would further strengthen local schools. The UASI School Security Initiative 

supplied security cameras and enhanced door locks, and established the 

“beSafe” program for schools to have standardized plans to respond to allhazard events. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 5 OIG-13-16 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Without performance measures and quantifiable evidence, however, the State is 

unable to demonstrate how SHSP and UASI grants have enhanced its ability to 

prevent, prepare for, protect against, and respond to natural disasters, acts of 

terrorism, and other manmade disasters. 

Procurement Requirements 

The State and subgrantees did not ensure that Federal regulations were followed 

for procurements of equipment and services with HSGP funds. We identified 

several instances of noncompliance with grant requirements concerning cost 

analysis, quotes, and poor record keeping: 

•	 Cost Analysis – One subgrantee procured services totaling $250,000 through 

a single-source vendor. The subgrantee provided a sole-source justification 

for the contract, explaining that the vendor was chosen because of its 

extensive knowledge of the State’s emergency systems. The subgrantee 

could not provide a cost analysis as required. 

•	 Quotes – A subgrantee did not retain quotes for a 2008 Sierra pickup truck 

procured with FY 2008 SHSP funds. Because of insufficient documentation, 

we could not determine whether the $35,399 purchase was acquired under 

full and open competition. 

•	 Poor Record Keeping – Three subgrantees were unable to provide purchase 

and procurement documentation such as invoices and purchase orders for 

equipment purchases totaling $186,179. 

Within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 44 CFR 13.36, Procurement, 

provides uniform administrative requirements for grants and cooperative 

agreements awarded to State and local governments. Federal procurement 

regulations direct that grantees and subgrantees should—

•	 Acquire equipment and services under full and open competition; 

•	 Conduct cost analyses to ensure that prices obtained through 

noncompetitive procurements are fair and reasonable; 

•	 Use noncompetitive procurement only when award of a contract is infeasible 

under small purchase procedures, sealed bids, or competitive proposals and 

�	 The item is only available from a single source, or 

www.oig.dhs.gov 6 	 OIG-13-16 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

�	 Public emergency will not permit a competitive purchase, or 

�	 The awarding agency authorizes noncompetitive proposals, or 

�	 After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined 

inadequate; and 

•	 Maintain records sufficient to describe the significant history of 

procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, 

rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, 

contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. 

The questionable procurement practices we identified can be attributed to staff 

turnover and the State’s limited oversight of the procurement area. 

Compliance with procurement requirements is necessary to ensure that the 

grant funds provide equipment or services at reasonable prices. Without quotes, 

cost analysis, and proper record keeping, the State cannot be assured that funds 

were spent efficiently and effectively and at lowest cost to the government. 

Inventory Requirements 

The State and the subgrantees did not always comply with grant inventory or 

property record requirements. 44 CFR 13.32(d), Management Requirements,

establishes procedures for managing equipment (including replacement 

equipment), whether acquired in whole or in part with grant funds, and includes 

the following minimum requirements: 

•	 Property records must be maintained and include the property’s description, 

identification number, source of the property, title holder, acquisition date, 

cost and percentage of Federal funds used in the cost, location, use and 

condition, and ultimate disposition. 

•	 A physical inventory of the property must be taken and the results reconciled 

with the property records at least every 2 years. 

•	 An inventory control system must be developed to ensure that adequate

safeguards are in place to prevent loss, damage, or theft of the property. 

Any loss, damage, or theft shall be investigated. 

FEMA grant guidance requires subgrantees, when practicable, to prominently 

mark any equipment purchased with grant funding with the statement 

www.oig.dhs.gov 7 	 OIG-13-16 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

“Purchased with funds provided by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.” 

We visited the State and 21 subgrantee sites, and conducted inventory reviews 

for the State and 12 subgrantees that had purchased equipment with grant 

funds. We identified inventory control violations and noncompliance with grant 

requirements for the State and all 12 subgrantees. For example, 

•	 Two of the 13 did not maintain an inventory list or other type of inventory 

control system. 

•	 None of the 13 maintained an inventory list with the six elements required 

by 44 CFR 13.32 for adequate property records: cost, description, 

identification number, title holder, location, and disposition data (disposal 

date or sale prices). 

•	 Eight of the 13 did not conduct a physical inventory every 2 years.

•	 Twelve of the 13 did not mark equipment with the statement “Purchased 

with funds provided by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.” 

One subgrantee was unable to locate a $7,800 infrared scope used to search for 

people trapped under debris. The equipment appeared on the inventory list; 

however, the location information was missing. After several attempts to locate 

this item over a 4-month period, the subgrantee had to declare the item missing 

and file a report with the local authorities. 

We identified a recurring issue of subgrantees failing to identify and mark

equipment. The absence of identification markers made it difficult to ensure 

that the equipment corresponded to the inventory list and was purchased with 

DHS grants. Subgrantee personnel said that they were not aware of some of the 

Federal property management requirements outlined in FEMA’s grant guidance. 

Without adherence to inventory management requirements, the State cannot 

ensure that assets procured with grant funds are adequately safeguarded to 

prevent loss, damage, or theft, and used as intended. The State’s ability to 

prevent, prepare for, protect against, and respond to all-hazard situations is 

diminished by subgrantees’ inadequate inventory record keeping and 

maintenance. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 8 	 OIG-13-16 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Subgrantee Program Monitoring

State monitoring efforts did not ensure subgrantee compliance with Federal 

grant procurement and inventory requirements. Office of Management and 

Budget Circular A-133, Compliance Supplement, Part 3-M, requires grantees to 

monitor subgrantees’ use of Federal awards through reporting, site visits, regular 

contact, or other means. 44 CFR 13.40(a), Monitoring and Reporting Program 

Performance, requires grantees to provide day-to-day management of all grantand subgrantee-supported activities and ensure that subgrantees comply with 

applicable Federal requirements and achieve program performance goals. 

The State has improved subgrantee monitoring, but additional focus is needed 

on monitoring active grants to ensure subgrantee compliance with requirements.

The SAA consists of a Grant Manager, a Grant Coordinator, and a Grant 

Compliance Officer. According to one SAA official, in August 2009, the State 

created a subgrantee monitoring position and subsequently hired a full-time 

Grant Compliance Officer. The officer said he has regular contact with 

subgrantees and monitors open grants through ad hoc onsite reviews, quarterly

reports, and desk monitoring. He monitors closed grants through ad hoc onsite 

reviews. 

The desk monitoring has succeeded in catching and correcting some 

noncompliance. For instance, in May 2010, the State completed a desk 

monitoring review that revealed that nine subgrantees had received an 

emergency notification system but did not have any documentation to show that 

they took custody of the equipment, nor where the equipment was located. 

However, monitoring shortfalls still exist. Shortfalls include the lack of a 

monitoring plan, including a schedule for monitoring subgrantees, and a lack of 

staff resources to monitor active grants. 

The State has established effective subgrantee working groups, which allow the 

State another means of overseeing and administering grant funds. Through 

working groups, the State has learned of upcoming challenges and has been able 

to proactively manage the grants. For example, in 2011, the State learned that a 

subgrantee was experiencing financial hardship and was headed toward 

bankruptcy. The State UASI working group worked with the subgrantee to 

quickly reallocate its grant for a rail security project to another subgrantee. 

Through working groups, the State also learned about subgrantees not meeting 

agreed-upon training requirements and quickly deobligated their grant funds. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 9 OIG-13-16 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

According to an SAA official, more onsite monitoring had not been done because 

of limited staff. The subgrantees explained that they were not monitoring for 

compliance owing to staff turnover, lack of knowledge of grant requirements, 

and lack of resources. 

If subgrantees are not monitored, FEMA and the State cannot be sure that grant 

funds are being spent and managed in compliance with procurement and 

inventory requirements.

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Federal Emergency Management Agency Assistant 

Administrator, Grant Programs Directorate: 

Recommendation #1:

Assist the Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency with revising the State 

Homeland Security Strategy to include— 

•	 Specific, measurable, and results-oriented objectives in compliance with

the most recent DHS guidance; and 

•	 Objective completion dates that are consistently listed in the strategies 

and are current and realistic for achieving each objective.

Recommendation #2: 

Expedite the development of adequate performance measures to assist the 

Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency with measuring and assessing all 

of the State’s capabilities and preparedness.

Recommendation #3: 

Require the Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency to provide training to 

subgrantees on how to use and comply with Federal, State, and local 

procurement and inventory requirements. 

Recommendation #4: 

Require the Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency to ensure that 

subgrantees develop and sustain an inventory control system in accordance with 

Federal requirements. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 10 	 OIG-13-16 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Recommendation #5: 

Require the Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency to develop a program 

monitoring schedule and plan to focus monitoring efforts on active grants. 

Recommendation #6: 

Require the Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency to conduct onsite 

monitoring of grants to correct deficiencies pertaining to procurement and 

inventory noncompliance with Federal, State, and local grant requirements. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

FEMA appreciated our audit work and the opportunity to comment on the draft 

report. The findings in the report will be used to strengthen the effectiveness 

and efficiency of FEMA’s execution and measurement of the subject grant 

programs. The agency recognizes the need to continue to improve the process, 

including addressing the recommendations raised in this report. A summary of 

FEMA’s and the State’s responses to each recommendation and our analysis 

follows. 

FEMA’s and the State’s Response to Recommendation #1: FEMA and the State 

concurred with the intent of this recommendation. NPD, the FEMA entity 

responsible for the Homeland Security Strategy and its guidance, plans to release 

updated guidance on strategic planning by January 2013. FEMA’s Grant 

Programs Directorate will require the Rhode Island Emergency Management 

Agency Director to revise Rhode Island’s Homeland Security Strategy to comply 

with the revised NPD guidelines. 

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

Recommendation 1, which is resolved and open. This recommendation will 

remain open pending confirmation that FEMA has released updated guidance for 

the Homeland Security Strategy, and that the Rhode Island Emergency 

Management Agency’s Homeland Security Strategy has been revised to comply 

with the new guidelines. 

FEMA’s and the State’s Response to Recommendation #2: FEMA and the State 

concurred with the intent of this recommendation. The FEMA NPD is currently 

developing processes to measure core capabilities in accordance with the

National Preparedness Goal pursuant to the Presidential Policy Directive. The 

State will complete the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment 

www.oig.dhs.gov 11 OIG-13-16 
 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

and submit it to FEMA by December 31, 2012. This assessment will be used to 

create a baseline and targets for FY 2013 and beyond. FEMA has also redesigned 

the State Preparedness Report, which will help States demonstrate and track 

preparedness improvement over time. 

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

Recommendation 2, which is resolved and open. This recommendation will 

remain open pending confirmation that the State has submitted its Threat and 

Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment to FEMA. FEMA must also provide 

documentation supporting the actions taken to develop performance measures 

from the State’s completed Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk 

Assessment. In addition, FEMA must document completion of the redesigned 

State Preparedness Report. 

FEMA’s and the State’s Response to Recommendations #3 and #4: FEMA and 

the State concurred with these recommendations. FEMA will require the Rhode 

Island Emergency Management Agency Director to develop and implement 

property management and inventory standard operating procedures (SOP) 

within 90 days of receipt of this report. The procedures will adhere to 44 CFR 

13.32 as well as State government policies and procedures. The implementation 

plan for the SOP must involve training for subgrantees. To further support the 

subgrantees, FEMA will require the Rhode Island Emergency Management 

Agency to develop resources that will assist subgrantees in their compliance with 

Federal, State, and local procurement requirements. 

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

Recommendations 3 and 4, which are resolved and open. These 

recommendations will remain open pending confirmation that the State has 

developed and implemented the SOP and has provided training and resources to 

the subgrantees in complying with property management and inventory policies, 

as well as Federal, State, and local procurement requirements. 

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

concurred with this recommendation. FEMA will require the Rhode Island 

Emergency Management Agency Director to submit a revised HSGP monitoring 

policy within 90 days of receipt of this report. The updated policy should include 

a clear method for selecting subgrantees for desk monitoring and onsite visits; 

the number or frequency of monitoring visits each year for both SHSP grants and 

UASI grants; a sample monitoring schedule to encompass the next 12 months; 

the protocols to be followed during the monitoring visits, including the materials 

www.oig.dhs.gov 12 OIG-13-16 
 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

and processes to be reviewed; and a process for documenting and resolving any 

deficiencies identified. 

The Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency has a formal monitoring 

policy in place that has been reviewed by FEMA and meets the Federal 

requirements. The State will develop and institute a formal yearly calendar of 

scheduled site monitoring for subrecipients and will attempt to increase the 

monitoring commensurate with the limited time and staff available. 

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

Recommendation 5, which is resolved and open. This recommendation will 

remain open pending confirmation that FEMA has provided the revised HSGP 

monitoring policy, including a monitoring schedule and plan for the Rhode Island 

Emergency Management Agency. 

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

concurred with this recommendation. FEMA will require the Rhode Island 

Emergency Management Agency Director to submit a revised HSGP monitoring 

policy within 90 days of receipt of this report. The updated policy should include 

a clear method for selecting subgrantees for desk monitoring and onsite visits; 

the number or frequency of monitoring visits each year for both SHSP grants and 

UASI grants; a sample monitoring schedule to encompass the next 12 months; 

the protocols to be followed during the monitoring visits, including the materials 

and processes to be reviewed; and a process for documenting and resolving any 

deficiencies identified. The State intends to enhance its enforcement efforts 

through better education and more monitoring of the subgrantees. 

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

Recommendation 6, which is resolved and open. This recommendation will 

remain open pending confirmation that FEMA has provided a revised HSGP 

monitoring policy, including a process for documenting and resolving deficiencies

identified on monitoring site visits, which has been completed by the Rhode 

Island Emergency Management Agency Director. 

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

 

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. 

This report provides the results of our work to determine whether the State of Rhode 

Island spent SHSP and UASI grant funds (1) effectively and efficiently and (2) in 

compliance with applicable Federal laws and regulations. We also addressed the extent 

to which funds enhanced the State’s ability to prevent, prepare for, protect against, and 

respond to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other manmade disasters. 

The HSGP and its five interrelated grant programs, State Homeland Security Program, 

Urban Areas Security Initiative, Operation Stonegarden, Citizen Corps Program, and 

Metropolitan Medical Response System Program, fund a range of preparedness 

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

management and administration costs. The State of Rhode Island did not receive 

Operation Stonegarden funding in 2008, 2009, or 2010. 

The scope of the audit included only the SHSP and UASI grant awards for FYs 2008, 

2009, and 2010. We reviewed the State’s plans to improve preparedness and allhazards response, the goals set within those plans, the measurement of progress 

toward the goals, and the assessments of performance improvement that result from 

this activity. 

The scope included the assessment of these activities within the context of risk to 

determine if the State’s plans produced strategic performance improvements related to 

the areas of highest risk rather than merely producing improvements in a broader sense 

(see table 2). 

www.oig.dhs.gov 14 OIG-13-16 
 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Table 2: State of Rhode Island’s Homeland Security Grant Program 

Funded Activity FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Total

State Homeland Security Program $6,170,000 $6,524,500 $6,613,200 $19,307,700

Urban Areas Security Initiative $5,015,000 $4,764,300 $4,764,300 $14,543,600

Total $11,185,000 $11,288,800 $11,377,500 $33,851,300

Citizen Corps Program $139,773 $139,520 $119,112 $398,405

Metropolitan Medical Response 

System Program $321,221 $321,221 $317,419 $959,861

Grand Total $11,645,994 $11,749,541 $11,814,031 $35,209,566

Source: DHS OIG. 

We judgmentally selected 21 out of the 48 subgrantees in addition to the SAA that had 

been awarded funding in FYs 2008, 2009, and 2010 to visit. We tested grant assets and 

verified inventory controls review based on the following variables: 

•	 Subgrantee financial status (i.e., filed for bankruptcy);

•	 Subgrantee geographic location; 

•	 Items categorized under the areas of Planning, Organization, Equipment, Training, 

Exercise activities, and Operational support systems; 

•	 Grant allocation amounts; 

•	 Reimbursement/invoice amounts; 

•	 Documentation discrepancies based on preliminary review at SAA; and

•	 Partial payments over multiple years. 

The site visits were conducted between January and March 2012. In accordance with 

the audit guide, auditors met with FEMA officials, the SAA, State agency offices, and first 

responders of cities/towns that received SHSP and UASI funding. At each location, we 

interviewed responsible officials, reviewed documentation supporting State and 

subgrantee management of grant funds, and inspected selected equipment procured 

with grant funds. We developed an asset verification tool to document the transactions 

chosen for review, results of review, and details related to training and exercises to 

ensure that requirements had been met. Table 3 lists all the subgrantees and shows the 

21 subgrantees reviewed. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 15 	 OIG-13-16 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Table 3: State of Rhode Island Subgrantees

Subgrantee Visited SHSP UASI 

1. Barrington ' 

2. Bristol ' 

3. Burrillville ' '

4. Central Falls ' ' '

5. Charlestown ' '

6. Coventry ' 

7. Cranston ' ' 

8. Cumberland ' 

9. East Greenwich ' 

10. East Providence ' ' ' 

11. Foster ' 

12. Glocester ' 

13. Hope Valley ' ' 

14. Hopkinton ' 

15. Jamestown ' 

16. Johnston ' ' 

17. Kingston ' '

18. Lincoln ' 

19. Little Compton ' '

20. Middletown ' 

21. Narragansett ' 

22. Newport ' ' '

23. New Shoreham ' 

24. North Kingstown ' '

25. North Providence ' '

26. North Smithfield ' 

27. Pawtucket ' ' ' 

28. Portsmouth ' 

29. Providence ' ' ' 

30. Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management ' 

31. Rhode Island Department of Health ' 

32. Rhode Island Disaster Medical Assistance Team ' 

33. Rhode Island 9-1-1 Uniform Emergency Telephone System ' '

34. Rhode Island National Guard ' 

35. Rhode Island Office of the State Fire Marshal ' ' '

36. Rhode Island State Police ' ' '

37. Richmond ' 

38. Scituate ' '

39. Smithfield ' 

40. South Kingstown ' '

41. T.F. Green Airport Fire/Rescue ' 

42. Tiverton ' 

43. Warren ' '

44. Warwick ' ' 

45. Westerly ' '

46. West Greenwich ' '

47. West Warwick ' ' '

48. Woonsocket ' ' '

Source: DHS OIG. 

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

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

We conducted this performance audit between November 2011 and May 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 17 OIG-13-16 
O

 

FFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix B 

FEMA Management Comments to the Draft Report 

u.s. I)cr"rtm~nt of Ilonw:l .. no.l S.::e •• ity 

W:u;hinl!ton. DC 20Jil 

OCT 1 9 2Ul2 

MEMORAI\' DUM FOR: Anne L. Richards 

Assistant Inspector General for Audits 

Office of Inspector General 

FROM, David J. Kaufman rr !P/i / 

Director L/" 

Office of Policy and Program Analysis 

SUBJECT, Response to O J" Draft Report, The S{(J(e o/Rhode Island'~i 

Management v/Slale Homeland Security Proxram and Urban Areas 

Security Initiafive G/"(fnl.~ AII/{n-ded 0111";l1g Fisca/ Years 2008 through 

2010 ( .l ob Code: 12-095-AUD-FEMA) 

Thank you for the opponunilY to comment on the subject dral\ report. The findings in ,the report will 

be used to strengthen thc effectiveness and efficiency of how wc execute and measure our programs. 

We reco£nize the need to continue to improve tne process, including addressing the 

recommendations raised in this report. Our respollSCS to the recolllUlemiatium; arc as fo llows: 

We recommend that the r edcral Emcrgency Management Agency Assistalll Admi nistrator, Grant 

Programs Directorate: 

Recomme[]dation #1: 

Assist the RJlOde Island Emergency Management Agency with rt:v isi ng the Statt: Homeland Securi ty 

Strategy to include : 

- Specific, measurable. and resu lts-oriented objectives in compliance with the ilIo.s1 reccnt DHS 

guidance; and 

- Objectivc complction dates that are consistentl y listed in the strategies and alc current and realisti<.: 

for achieving each objective. 

FEMA H.esponse: 

FEMA concurs with the intent of this recommendation. The National Preparedness Directorate 

(NPD), the Fedeml Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) entity responsible fo r the homeland 

security strategy (HSS) and its guidance, pions to releose updoted guidance on strategic planning by 

January 2013. FEMA 's Grant Progmms Directorate (GPO) will require the Rhode Island Emergency 

Management Agency (KlEMA) Director to revise Rhode Island's HSS to comply with revised 

www.oig.dhs.gov 18 OIG-13-16 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

guidelines developed by NPD. FEMA believes this satisfies the intent of the recommendation and 

requests that this recommendation be resolved and open pending revision of Rhode Island's 

Homeland Security Strategy. 

Recommendation #2. 

Expedite the development of adequate performance measures to assist the Rhode Island Emergency 

Management Agency with measuring and assessing all of the State's capabilities and preparedness. 

FEMA Response Recommendation #2: 

FEMA concurs with the intent of this recommendation. The FEMA NPD is currently developing 

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

to PPD-S. The State will complete the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment 

(THlRA) and submit it to FEMA by December 31, 2012. The THlRA ~il1 be used to create a 

baseline and targets for Fiscal Year 2013 and beyond. FEMA has also redesigned the State 

Preparedness Report that will help states demonstrate and track preparedness improvement over 

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

stated corrective action. 

Recommendation #3: 

Require the Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency to provide training to subgrantecs on 

how to use and comply with Federal, State, and local procurement and inventory requirements. 

Recommendation #4: 

Require the Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency to ensure that subgrantees develop and 

sustain an inventory control system in accordance with Federal requirements. 

FEMA Response to Recommendations #3 and #4: 

FEMA concurs with both recommendations. FEMA GPD will require the RlEMA Director to 

develop and implement a property management and inventory Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 

within 90 days of receipt of this report. The SOP will adhere to procedures set forth in 44 CFR13.32 

as well as State government policies and procedures. The implementation plan for this SOP must 

involve training for subgrantees. To further support the subgrantees RJEMA will be required to 

develop resources that will assist subgrantees in their compliance with Federal, State and local 

procurement requirements. FEMA requests these recommendations be resolved and open pending 

implementation of the stated corrective actions. 

Recommendation #5: 

Require the Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency to develop a program monitoring 

schedule and plan to focus monitoring efforts on active grants. 

Retommendation ft6: 

Require the Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency to conduct onsite monitoring of grants to 

correct deficiencies pertaining to procurement and inventory noncompliance with Federal, State, and 

local grant requirements. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 19 OIG-13-16 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

FEMA Response to Recommendations #S and #6: 

FEMA concurs with both recommendations. FEMA GPD will require the RIEMA Director to submit 

a revised HSGP monitoring policy to GPD ",ithin 90 days of receipt of this report. The updated 

policy should include: 

a.) a clear method for selecting subgrantees for desk monitoring and onsite visits; 

b.) the number or frequency of monitoring visits each year for both SHSP (State Homeland 

Security Program) grants and UASI (Urban Area Security Initiative) grants; 

c.) a sample monitoring schedulc to cncompass the next 12 months; 

d.) the protocols to be followed during the monitoring visits, including the materials and 

processes to be reviewed; and 

e.) a process for documenting and resolving any deficiencies identified. 

FEMA requests these recommendations be resolved and open pending implementation of the stated 

corrective actions. 

Again, we thank you for the opportunity to provide comments concerning this report. Please contact 

Audit Liaison Gina Norton at 202-646-4287. regarding further questions or concerns. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 20 OIG-13-16 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix C 

State of Rhode Island Management Comments to the Draft Report 

STATe OF RIIOD!! ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE I'I..AN'l"ATIONS 

MILITARY STAFF Ul''<:OI.N D. CUAFEE 

EMERGE'JCY MAl AGEMENT AGENCY 

645 New London A venue Me; [('EYn'I R. Mo:;BRIOti P.E 

Cranston, RI 02920·3091 

(401)946-9996 TlIEllESIt. C. MlJ!UtAY 

MEMORANDUM FOR: Elizabeth M. Hannan Assistant 

Administrator Grant Programs 

D irectorate 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Through: Mark Bell 

Deputy Assistant 

inspector General of Audits 

Date: October 12, 2012 

The State ofRr is in receipt of your letter dated August 16,2012 concerning the Office of 

Inspector General (OlG) findings and recommendations relating to the State or Rhode Island's 

Management of the State Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative 

Grunts Awarded during Fiscal Years 2008 through 2010. 

We appreciate the outreach and effort of the OIG which has enhanced our administration ofthe 

State Homcland Security GI'allt IJrogram. l1lease reference the below responses to each 

recommendation as required in your letter. We look forward to hearing from you relative to oW' 

response, and will endeavor to ensure better compliance wilh the program. 

Recommendation # I : 

Assist the Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency with revising the Slate 

Homeland Security Stnltegy to include----

Specifi c, measurabl e, and results-oriented objectives in compliance with the most recent 

DHS guidance; and 

Objective completion dates that nre consistently Listed in the strategies and are current 

and realistic for achieving each objecti ve. 

Based on our audit work. wc understand that R1EMA submittcd and FEMA accepted Rhode 

Island's State Homeland Security Strategy. Although FEMA guida.nce requires that the strategy 

include specific, measurable and results-oricntcd objcctives, FEMA has not brought this 

Tel: (401) 946-9996 F.x: (40 1) 944- 189 1 www.ricm3.ri.gov 

www.oig.dhs.gov 21 OIG-13-16 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

requirement to the attention of RlEMA and has not reviewed their strategy to ensure that it meets 

these FEMA requirements. TIle intent of recommendation #1 is for FEMA to begin providing 

oversight to ensure that Siale Homeland Security Strategies, like Rhode Island's, meet the FEMA 

requirements. 

RlEMA Respollse 

We agree with this response. We were in compliance with the gI"'dllt requirements to submit a 

state strategy however wilL concede the strategy could have had more specific, measurabl e and 

results-oriented objectives and needs updating. The current State Homeland Security strategy 

that was submitted in 2009 was reviewed and approved by multiple Stute Agencies and FEMA. 

The State had begun the process of updating the Strategy. 'Ole plan update will now be deLayed 

until after NPD releases their updated guidance on strategic planning in early 2013 . 'This plan 

update will review and incorporate the recommendations that were specified in this report. 

These include 1) specific, measurable, and results-oricnted objectives in compliance with the 

most recent DHS guidance, and 2) objective completion dates tbat are consistently listed in the 

strategies and arc current and realistic for achieving each objective. 

Recommendation #2: 

Expedite the development of adequate perfomlance measures to assist the Rhode Island 

Emergency Management Agency with measuring and assessing all of the State's capabilities and 

preparedness. 

RIEMA KespoII:"c 

We agree with this response, however, this requirement was nOI explicit and the Stale struggled 

with FEMA as different measurement systems came in wcnt throughout the aforementioned 

grant years. For example, RJEMA did participate in the Cost to Capabilities "C2C pilot 

program. The State of Rhode Island ocgan implementing performance measures for all 

agencies in SFY 2012. The RJ Emergency Management Agency was required to develop 

perfonnance measures for all of i lS programs. While the measures currcntly being implemented 

look at programs and projects, it docs not specifically offer in depth analysis of each projects 

impact. RlEMA will fonow the recommendation and look: into developing more adequate 

perfonnancc measures to assist with measuring and assessing a1l of the Statc's capabilities and 

preparedness. RlEMA will continue to work with the State Depm1ment of Administration on tlus 

project. 

Recommendal'ion #3: 

Require the Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency to provide training to sub grantees 

on how (0 use and comply with Federal. State. and local procurement and inventory 

requirements. 

Tel: (40 1) 946-9996 Fax: (40 1) 944- 189 1 wwwrjema.ri.gov 

www.oig.dhs.gov 22 OIG-13-16 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

RlE'MA Respollse 

We agree with this findi ng. Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency has developed and 

instituted a new policy regarding the notification and distribution of non-disaster grants. RLEMA 

will no longer mail sub.gramccs their grant awards and gmnt packets. RJEMA will require subgrantees to attend a workshop on complying with Federal, State, and local procurement and 

inventory requircments in ordcr to rcceive their grant awards and grant handbooks. RIEMA will 

increase the monitoring of open grants to provide technical assistance to sub grantees in the areas 

of procurement regulations and inventory recording and control. This will be done through the 

newly established grants calendar e1aboratcd upon in item #5. 

Recommendation #4: 

Require the Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency to ensure that sub grantees develop 

and sustain an invelltory control system in accordance with Federal requiremenlS. 

RJEMA Response 

We agree with this finding. ProPClty records will be maintained to include all required 

infonn3tion, in addition to current information gnthered, RIEMA will include the Stnte Bur 

Code, Wasp Generated Bar Code, and RlEMA Bar Code to Cross Reference. Also the 

[)ercentage of Federal Funds used and the "Purchased with funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security" Label will be added. RIEMA's Purchasing Department wilJ 

ensure that the inventOI'Y Control Manager receives advance copies of aU purchase orders 

generated to cross walk control of the properly ordered. 

A wall to wall physical Inventory of properly was conducted by Rhode Island Accounts and 

Control in May of2011, and is currently tracked by RIEMA's Fiscal Department. A RlEMA 

inventory will be conducted in November 2012 to account for all RIEMA property. 'Il lis will be 

placed in newly purchased proprietary data base software called WASP MobiJe Asset Tnventory 

Control Software. 

RlEMA has an Asset Inventory Procedure (#500.0 1IEMAP Reference 4.8.1) and will implement 

I October 2012. The Procedure will create a policy and procedure to receive, tmck, and maintain 

a perpetual inventory of property. A RffiMA inventory has becn established aud is currently 

tracked on a Spread Sheet and controlled by the Logistics Manager. 

RJEMA sub grantees currently report all equipment purchas~ in an ext,;t:1 funnal. This report 

will be forwa rded to the inventory control manager [or assimilation into one large spreadsheet. 

On-going educational efforts with sub grantee's continues concerning inventory disc ipline. 

Fiscal and grant staff will be retrained and instructed to work closely with sub-grantees prior to 

the reimbursement process to ensure compliance with federal requirements. Staff will stress 

inventory control sheets and labeling of all equipment. 

Recommendation 115: 

Require the Rhode Island Emergency Managemcnt Agcncy to develop a program monitoring 

schedule and plan to focus monitoring efforts on active grants. 

Tel: (401) 946-9996 Fax: (401) 944- 1891 www.riema.ri . .&.o~ 

www.oig.dhs.gov 23 OIG-13-16 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

We understand that RIEMA conducts on·site monitoring of active grants. However, their 

monitoring of active grants is conducted on an ad hoc basis. The intent of recommendation #5 is 

for FEMA to require RlEMA to establish a fonna1 active grant monitoring schedule. such as an 

annual schedule. 

RJEMA RespoIJse 

We agree with this rmding. RrEMA will developed and institute a fonnal yearly calendar of 

scheduled site monitoring for sub recipients. Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency 

currently has a lormal monitoring policy that has been reviewed by FEMA and meets Federal 

requirements. RIEMA grant an~ monitoring of active and closed grants is ongoing and we will 

attempt increase the monitoring commensurate with tbc limited time and staff available. 

Random site and desk audits will continue but more [oeus will be placed on scheduling of a cross 

section on grants to ensure 10% of a11 grants are monitored to meet compliance. 

Recommendation #6: 

Require the Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency to conduct onsite monitoring of 

grants to correct deficiencies pertaining to procurement and inventory noncompliance with 

Federal, State, and local srant n -qu .. irements. 

We understand that RlEMA conducts on·site monitoring of active grants. However, during our 

audit we found deficiencies pertaining to procurement and inventory noncompl iance. The intent 

of recommendation #6 is for FEMA to require RlEMA to conduct onsite monitoring that wouJd 

help correct the deficiencies we found immediately. 

RI EMA ~l'o se 

We agree with this finding. We intend on enhancing our effort of enforcement through better 

educati on and more monitoring of the sub recipients specially in tJle areas of purchasing and 

inventory control. Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency has conducted onsite 

monitoring of grants to COITect deficiencies pertaining to procurement and inventory 

noncompliance with Federal, State, and local grant requiremcnts. Sub· grantees are understaffed 

and underfunded and sometimes unable to meet tbe inventory compliance issues such as labeling 

of equipment to give credit to the program providing the funding. RIEMA bas made efforts to 

reach out to sub grantees to COITCct and enforce this deficiency through on·site monitoring. 

If you have any questions, or need additional illfonnation, please contact our Grants Manager, 

Richard Jones at 401-462-7 l07. or ricky,joncs@us,anny.mil. 

Sincerely, 

- RiCh:;Ml0 

rantA~tor RJ Emergency Management Agency 

Tel: (401) 946-999(, Fax:(401)944- 1891 www rjcma rj gov 

www.oig.dhs.gov 24 OIG-13-16 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix D 

Description of Homeland Security Grant Program

The HSGP provides Federal funding to help State and local agencies enhance capabilities 

to prevent, deter, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks, major disasters, and 

other emergencies. The HSGP encompasses several interrelated Federal grant programs 

that together fund a range of preparedness activities, including planning, organization, 

equipment purchase, training, and exercises, as well as management and administration 

costs. Programs include the following: 

•	 The State Homeland Security Program provides financial assistance directly to each 

of the States and Territories to prevent, respond to, and recover from acts of 

terrorism and other catastrophic events. The program supports the implementation 

of the State Homeland Security Strategy to address identified planning, equipment, 

training, and exercise needs. 

•	 The Urban Areas Security Initiative provides financial assistance to address the 

unique planning, equipment, training, and exercise needs of high-risk urban areas, 

and to assist in building an enhanced and sustainable capacity to prevent, respond 

to, and recover from threats or acts of terrorism and other disasters. Allowable 

costs for the urban areas are consistent with the SHSP. Funding is expended based 

on the Urban Area Homeland Security Strategies.

The HSGP also includes other interrelated grant programs with similar purposes. 

Depending on the fiscal year, these programs include the following: 

•	 Metropolitan Medical Response System

•	 Citizen Corps Program 

•	 Operation Stonegarden (applicable only for FY 2010)

www.oig.dhs.gov 25 	 OIG-13-16 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix E 

Major Contributors to This Report 

Patrick O’Malley, Director 

Shelley Howes, Audit Manager 

John Jadick, Program Analyst 

Megan McNulty, Program Analyst

Kristine Odiña, Program Analyst 

Kevin Donahue, Independent Referencer 

www.oig.dhs.gov 26 OIG-13-16 
 

 

 

 

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 

FEMA Administrator 

FEMA Assistant Administrator for the National Preparedness Directorate 

FEMA 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 27 OIG-13-16 
 

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.