Department of Homeland Security
 

Wisconsin’s Management of Homeland Security 


Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants 


Awarded During Fiscal Years 2008 Through 2010 


OIG-13-33 January 2013
 
 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

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

JAN 30 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: Wisconsin’s Management of Homeland Security Program and 

Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal 

Years 2008 Through 2010 

Attached for your action is our final report, Wisconsin’s Management of 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 and the Office of Justice Assistance in the final report. 

The report contains five recommendations aimed at improving the State’s management of 

State Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative grants. Your office 

concurred with all recommendations. As prescribed by the Department of Homeland 

Security Directive 077-1, Follow-Up and Resolutions for the Office of Inspector General 

Report Recommendations, within 90 days of the date of this memorandum, please provide 

our office with a written response that includes your (1) agreement or disagreement, (2) 

corrective action plan, and (3) target completion date for each recommendation. Also, 

please include responsible parties and any other supporting documentation necessary to 

inform us about the current status of the recommendation. Until your response is received 

and evaluated, the recommendations will be considered open and unresolved. 

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. 

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

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

Results of Audit ................................................................................................................... 2
 

State and UASI Homeland Security Strategies........................................................ 3
 

Recommendation ................................................................................................... 4
 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis ........................................................... 5
 

Subgrantee Monitoring........................................................................................... 5
 

Recommendations .................................................................................................. 8
 

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

Budget Misclassification ......................................................................................... 9
 

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

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

Measurable Strategic Goals and Objectives ......................................................... 12 

Best Practices........................................................................................................ 13 

Other Concerns ..................................................................................................... 14 

Appendixes 

Appendix A: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ........................................... 16 

Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report .............................. 19 

Appendix C: Homeland Security Grant Program............................................... 24 

Appendix D: Wisconsin Homeland Security Council – Participating State and 

Local Agencies .............................................................................. 25 

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

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

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Table of Contents 
 

 

 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

GAN Grant Adjustment Notice 

HSGP Homeland Security Grant Program 

OIG Office of Inspector General

OJA Office of Justice Assistance 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

SHSP State Homeland Security Program 

SMART specific, measurable, achievable, results-oriented, time-limited

STAC Southeastern Wisconsin Anti-Terrorism Center

UASI Urban Areas Security Initiative 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Executive Summary

Public Law 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 

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 Wisconsin. 

The objectives of the audit were to determine whether the State of Wisconsin (1) spent 

grant funds effectively and efficiently; (2) complied with applicable Federal laws and 

regulations and DHS guidelines governing the use of such funding; and (3) enhanced the 

ability of State grantees to prevent, prepare for, protect against, and respond to natural 

disasters, acts of terrorism, and other manmade disasters. The audit included a review 

of approximately $43 million in State Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas 

Security Initiative grant funds awarded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) to Wisconsin from fiscal years 2008 through 2010. 

In most cases, the State Administrative Agency, the Office of Justice Assistance, 

administered its grant programs in compliance with requirements in Federal grant 

guidance and regulations. The Office of Justice Assistance linked program goals and 

objectives to national priorities and DHS mission areas. The State Homeland Security 

Strategy contained defined objectives and goals to measure performance. Grant funds 

were spent on allowable items and activities, and adequate controls existed over the 

approval of expenditures and reimbursement of funds. 

However, we identified three areas for program improvement: the Urban Areas 

Security Initiative Homeland Security Strategy operational plan, subgrantee monitoring 

procedures, and review of grant adjustments. 

We made five recommendations to FEMA for improvements, which, if implemented, 

should strengthen program management, performance, and oversight. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 1 OIG-13-33 
 

 

 

 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. Appendix C 

contains details of HSGP. 

The Wisconsin Governor appointed the Office of Justice Assistance (OJA) as the 

Wisconsin State Administrative Agency. OJA is responsible for managing HSGP in 

accordance with established Federal guidelines and allocating funds to local and other 

State government agencies. OJA is also responsible for State and Federal fiscal oversight 

and development of the State Homeland Security Strategy. In addition, OJA is a 

member of the Wisconsin Homeland Security Council, which the Governor established 

to assist in the coordination of homeland security outreach efforts and operations. The 

council, which comprises 13 appointed representatives from State and local agencies,

advises the Governor, coordinates State and local prevention and response efforts, and 

produces periodic reports on the state of homeland security in Wisconsin. Appendix D 

contains the participants of the Wisconsin Homeland Security Council. 

OJA awards HSGP-funded grants to subgrantees—cities, counties, and various State 

agencies in Wisconsin. In 2006, OJA implemented the Web-based Egrants system to 

streamline processing and improve grant reporting and communications. According to 

OJA, Egrants enhances Federal and State fiscal portfolio management, improves funding 

announcements and coordination, monitors progress and financial reporting by 

subgrantees, and improves equipment inventory reporting. 

The State received approximately $43 million in State Homeland Security Program 

(SHSP) and Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) grant funds from fiscal years (FYs) 2008 

through 2010. Appendix A provides details on the objectives, scope, and methodology

for this audit. 

From FYs 2008 through 2010, the Milwaukee UASI received $4.5 million, $4.2 million, 

and $4.2 million, respectively. In May 2011, the Milwaukee UASI was notified that it 

would not receive FY 2011 funding. According to OJA officials, the Milwaukee UASI will 

be able to continue using FY 2010 grant funds through 2013. The officials also said that 

meetings have been held to develop sustainment plans for the Milwaukee UASI programs. 

Results of Audit 

In most cases, OJA administered its grant programs in compliance with requirements in 

Federal grant guidance and regulations. OJA developed and aligned its State Homeland 

www.oig.dhs.gov 2 OIG-13-33 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Security Strategy with National Preparedness Guidelines. It also developed yearly 

strategies that linked goals and objectives to the four mission areas and eight national 

priorities established by DHS. OJA’s reimbursement processes were timely, accurate, 

and controlled. OJA also established measurable strategic goals and objectives in its 

State Homeland Security Strategy. OJA uses a comprehensive Web-based grants 

management system to track, process, and report grant activity. 

However, although OJA developed its State strategy in accordance with national 

preparedness guidelines, it needs to finalize and better align its UASI Homeland Security 

Strategy operational plan. In addition, OJA needs to monitor subgrantees better and 

improve its review of grant adjustments. 

State and UASI Homeland Security Strategies 

Wisconsin’s State Homeland Security Strategy is properly aligned with priorities 

in the National Preparedness Guidelines and other Federal guidelines. However, 

the UASI Homeland Security Strategy operational plan has not been finalized and 

does not completely reflect the goals and objectives in the strategy submitted to 

and approved by FEMA. 

State Homeland Security Strategy Aligns With National Preparedness Guidelines 

Wisconsin’s State Homeland Security Strategy is properly aligned with the 

priorities in the National Preparedness Guidelines and the Target Capabilities 

List, which are the guidelines the State uses to create its strategy. The State 

strategy includes goals and objectives that are linked to DHS-established mission 

areas and national priorities. 

During our audit, we reviewed two State strategies—the State of Wisconsin 

Homeland Security Strategy created in 2003, which was in effect through 2008, 

and the State of Wisconsin Homeland Security Strategy, implemented in 2009 

and in effect through 2011. The primary focus of the State strategy in effect 

from 2003 through 2008 was to prevent, respond to, and recover from acts of 

terrorism. OJA updated the State strategy in effect from 2009 through 2011 to 

align with the revised National Homeland Security Strategy and the National 

Preparedness Guidelines. The updated State strategy was more comprehensive 

and predominantly capabilities-based; it was designed to help Wisconsin make 

informed choices to manage risk and reduce the impact of potential threats and 

all types of hazardous events, both natural and manmade.

www.oig.dhs.gov 3 OIG-13-33 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Milwaukee UASI Homeland Security Strategy Operational Plan Needs 

Improvement 

The Milwaukee UASI Homeland Security Strategy operational plan, used to 

implement day-to-day operations, is not finalized and does not completely 

reflect the strategy the State submitted and FEMA approved. According to the 

State and Urban Area Homeland Security Strategy, Guidance on Aligning

Strategies with the National Preparedness Goal, “the State and Urban Areas 

Homeland Security Strategies should have strong foundations that support an 

ongoing process of review and refinement as new lessons are learned, new 

priorities are realized, and new homeland security guidance is released.” The 

operational plan was neither approved nor refined. As a result, UASI may be 

pursuing goals and objectives and implementing day-to-day operations that are 

not aligned with those approved by FEMA. 

Our review of the 2006 operational plan, which was the basis for HSGP FY 2008 

and FY 2009 funding, showed that its goals and objectives did not completely 

align or contain the level of detail in its objectives (that is, specific, measurable, 

achievable, results-oriented, time-limited, or SMART) as the FEMA-approved 

strategy. In addition, UASI did not approve the operational plan. 

According to an OJA official, the Milwaukee UASI did not develop a 

comprehensive UASI Homeland Security Strategy operational plan until 2010. 

However, the 2010 operational plan was not approved. The plan included 

reviewer comments in the margins. Finally, it did not completely align with the 

goals or contain SMART objectives like those in the FEMA-approved strategy. 

In May 2011, FEMA notified the Wisconsin Homeland Security Administrator 

that, because of budget cuts, it would not receive FY 2011 UASI funding. 

According to an OJA official, as a result of not being funded, UASI changed its 

priority from updating the operational plan to sustaining operations.

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs Directorate, 

direct the Office of Justice Assistance to: 

Recommendation #1:

Update the 2010 UASI Homeland Security Strategy operational plan to include

the goals and objectives of the FEMA-approved strategy and incorporate into it 

current plans for sustaining Milwaukee UASI operations. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 4 OIG-13-33 
 

 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

Management Response: FEMA concurred with recommendation 1. FEMA 

stated that it will direct Wisconsin’s Office of Justice Assistance to update its 

State Homeland Security Strategy to incorporate goals and objectives for 

sustaining Milwaukee UASI operations. OJA agreed with recommendation 1. 

According to OJA, it received an updated 2010 Strategy from the Milwaukee 

UASI on October 8, 2012, and forwarded it to FEMA on October 9, 2012, for 

review and approval. 

OIG Analysis: The actions proposed by FEMA and taken by OJA are responsive to 

the recommendation. However, the recommendation will remain open and 

unresolved until final implementation of the proposed corrective actions. 

Subgrantee Monitoring 

OJA does not adequately monitor subgrantees to ensure that they are complying 

with applicable Federal requirements. Although OJA monitors subgrantees 

through Single Audits, desk audits, and compliance site visits, these efforts do 

not always ensure sufficient compliance monitoring of Federal laws and grant 

requirements.1 Specifically, Single Audits do not provide sufficient audit coverage, 

and desk audits were not performed for HSGP grants from FYs 2008 through 

2010. OJA conducts compliance site visits, but they are conducted after grants 

are closed and mainly to ensure only that grant-funded equipment is allowable, 

necessary, distributed, and adequately secured. As a result, OJA cannot be 

assured that subgrantees’ day-to-day operations and grant-related activities 

comply with Federal requirements. 

According to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 44 CFR 13.40(a), Monitoring 

and Reporting Program Performance, Monitoring by grantees, grantees are 

required to manage the day-to-day operations of grant and subgrant-supported 

activities and ensure that subgrantees comply with applicable Federal 

requirements. Additionally, OMB Circular A-133, Compliance Supplement, Part 

3M, requires grantees to monitor subgrantees’ use of Federal awards through 

reporting, site visits, regular contact, or other means. 

1

 All non-Federal entities that expend $500,000 or more in Federal awards in a year are required to obtain 

an annual Single Audit in accordance with the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996; Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit 

Organizations; and OMB Circular A-133, Compliance Supplement; and Generally Accepted Government 

Auditing Standards.

www.oig.dhs.gov 5 OIG-13-33 
 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Single Audits 

OJA uses results from the Single Audits to monitor subgrantees that receive 

HSGP grant funds. During FYs 2008 through 2010, only two of the five 

counties/cities selected for our site visits had HSGP grants reviewed during their 

Single Audits. Thus, the Single Audit process does not provide adequate 

coverage to monitor HSGP grant funds. 

In addition to Single Audits, OJA requires auditors to use a supplemental audit 

guide to ensure compliance with criteria in 44 CFR 13.40. The supplemental 

guide addresses HSGP grant requirements, such as financial controls and 

reporting, procurement controls, equipment inventories, and testing of grant 

expenditures. However, the guide has not been used because HSGP funds in 

some counties have not been considered “major.”2

For the five locations selected for our site visits, we obtained and reviewed the 

Single Audit reports completed during the scope of our audit. Although all five 

of the counties/cities had Single Audits performed in FYs 2008 through 2010, 

three of the counties did not have HSGP grants tested (see table 1). Waukesha 

County had HSGP coverage in 1 out of 3 years, and only the City of Milwaukee 

had HSGP grants tested all 3 years. OJA relies on internal control testing through 

Single Audits of non-HSGP grants because of the similarity of a county’s 

accounting controls and processes. However, Single Audits do not test specific 

HSGP grant requirements, such as grant financial controls and reporting 

requirements, procurement controls, and equipment inventories. 

Although an OJA official contended that coverage is adequate, OJA relies

substantially on Single Audits to monitor subgrantees. Because the audits do not 

cover all counties and do not always test HSGP grant requirements, the Single 

Audit process does not provide sufficient coverage. 

2

 Major program determination—“The auditor shall use a risk-based approach to determine which Federal 

programs are major programs. This risk-based approach shall include consideration of current and prior 

audit experience, oversight by Federal agencies and pass-through entities, and the inherent risk of the

Federal program.” OMB Circular A-133, Major Program Determination.

www.oig.dhs.gov 6 OIG-13-33 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Table 1: Single Audit Coverage of HSGP Grants in Wisconsin, FYs 2008–2010 

Wisconsin 

County / City

City of 

Milwaukee

Milwaukee

Washington

Waukesha

Jefferson

State of Wisconsin Single Audit Coverage (HSGP)

FY 2008 

Coverage 

FY 2008 

Single Audit 

Issues 

FY 2009 

Coverage 

FY 2009 

Single Audit 

Issues 

FY 2010 

Coverage 

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No N/A No N/A No

No N/A No N/A No

No N/A Yes No No

No N/A No N/A No

FY 2010 

Single Audit 

Issues 

Yes

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Source: DHS OIG-prepared from review of FYs 2008 to 2010 Single Audit reports for selected

counties and the City of Milwaukee.

Desk Audits

OJA did not conduct desk audits for any HSGP grants awarded from FYs 2008 

through 2010 because of scheduling and staffing issues. As a result, the desk 

audit process for these grants has not enhanced OJA’s monitoring of subgrantees.

An OJA official said that desk audits for FY 2008 through 2010 HSGP grants 

resumed after the completion of OIG’s fieldwork. Out of the 62 grants selected 

for a desk audit, 32 have been completed. According to OJA, future HSGP desk 

audits will consist of (1) fiscal review (whether expenditures are within budget; 

fiscal reports are current and submitted by due dates; and expenses appear 

reasonable, allocable, and allowable); (2) equipment review (whether there is 

evidence of cash outflow); (3) program review (whether program reports are 

current and submitted by due date and whether there are changes in project 

directors); and (4) file review (whether files contain applications, awards, and 

payment requests; and whether Equal Employment Opportunity and 

discrimination issues are documented). These reviews relate to grant 

performance and do not take into account all requirements in 44 CFR 13.40. 

Compliance Site Visits 

Although OJA conducts equipment compliance site visits, these visits take place 

at the end of the grant and are limited to reviews of grant-purchased equipment 

to ensure that it is allowable, necessary, distributed, and adequately secured. 

Field representatives are assigned to specific regions of the State to perform 

these site visits. A visit is scheduled to view the equipment and conduct 

interviews. Once the compliance site visit is completed, the equipment in 

www.oig.dhs.gov 7 OIG-13-33
 

 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

question is not tested again. Because these visits are conducted at the close of

grants and are limited reviews, they do not ensure that subgrantees are fully 

monitored throughout grant programs. 

Conclusion

OJA has three processes to monitor subgrantees, but none provides assurance 

that subgrantees are fully monitored for compliance with Federal grant guidance 

and regulations. Single Audits did not provide adequate HSGP coverage, desk 

audits were not completed for HSGP grants awarded from FY 2008 through 

FY 2010, and compliance site visits are limited reviews. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs Directorate, 

direct the Office of Justice Assistance to: 

Recommendation #2:

Perform timely and routine desk audits of Homeland Security Grant Program 

grants. 

Recommendation #3: 

Incorporate steps into the desk audits, in order to comply with 44 CFR 13.40, for 

testing of grant financial controls and reporting requirements, procurement 

controls, and testing of grant expenditures, similar to the Office of Justice 

Assistance’s supplemental audit guide. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis

Management Response: FEMA concurred with recommendations 2 and 3. 

FEMA stated that it will direct OJA to develop a plan for routine and timely desk 

audits, and incorporate steps into its existing monitoring policy for desk audits. 

OJA agreed with recommendation 2 and partially agreed with recommendation 3. 

OJA reported that it has completed desk monitoring of all 62 FYs 2008 through 

2010 HSGP grants selected for review that were not completed at the conclusion 

of our fieldwork. OJA is evaluating modifications to the desk monitoring process. 

Among the changes being considered is an increase in the frequency of desk 

monitoring. In addition, OJA stated that maintaining a 20 percent desk 

monitoring level should be attainable in the future because Wisconsin’s 

www.oig.dhs.gov 8 OIG-13-33 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

homeland security funding has dropped 83 percent between 2008 and 2012, 

which will substantially decrease the number of subgrants to be monitored. 

OJA believes that it meets its obligations under 44 CFR 13.40, but nonetheless is 

considering enhancing its monitoring process to provide greater assurances of 

compliance. This will include creating weighting within the criteria for selecting 

20 percent of grants for desk monitoring. The weighting will consider whether 

the subrecipient had a major single audit finding over the past 2 years, and if not, 

additional questions relating to existing controls will be asked. 

OIG Analysis: The actions proposed by FEMA and taken by OJA are responsive to 

recommendations 2 and 3. These recommendations will remain open and 

unresolved until final implementation of the proposed corrective actions. 

Budget Misclassification

Although OJA normally spent grant funds on allowable items and activities and 

had adequate controls over the approval of grant award expenditures and 

reimbursement of funds, we noted one budget misclassification involving a grant 

to the City of Milwaukee. Specifically, $95,266 in grant funding was incorrectly 

categorized in the grant budget as supplies and operating expenses rather than 

as equipment. Because of this misclassification, equipment that first responders 

would use in an emergency was not reported and inventoried as required. As a 

result, OJA may have reduced its ability to properly assess first responder 

capabilities and performance levels. 

OJA reported this error to us. It occurred when a grant was being adjusted 

(through a Grant Adjustment Notice) and was a result of miscommunication 

between OJA and the Milwaukee UASI. A Grant Adjustment Notice completed 

on December 21, 2011, erroneously subtracted $98,308 from the equipment 

budget category and increased supplies and operating expenses by $95,266, as 

shown in table 2. The equipment purchased under the grant (ID 6497), is used in 

the Southeastern Wisconsin Anti-Terrorism Center (STAC), Wisconsin’s primary 

intelligence analysis and dissemination facility. The overall grant of $555,000 

was used to fund the STAC project manager, two intelligence analysts, 

technology equipment and software licensing, and STAC physical security 

enhancements. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 9 OIG-13-33 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Table 2. Grant Adjustment for Grant ID 6497 

Approved Budget by

Category

Personnel

Employee Benefits

Travel

Equipment

Supplies and Operating 

Expenses

Total

Grant ID 6497 Budget Detail

Current Subgrant 

Budget Net Change

$207,400.00 $14,989.26

$97,600.00 ($11,947.51)

$30,000.00 $0.00

$219,000.00 ($98,308.00)

$1,000.00 $95,266.25

$555,000.00 $0.00

New Budget

$222,389.26

$85,652.49

$30,000.00

$120,692.00

$96,266.25

$555,000.00

Source: DHS OIG analysis of grant ID 6497.

Our review of grant expenditures and a physical inventory of STAC equipment 

showed that equipment valued at $95,266 and categorized as supplies and 

operating expenses was actually the primary equipment supporting STAC and its 

emergency response, as depicted in table 3. According to OJA grant 

announcement instructions, first responder-related equipment should be 

considered sole purpose equipment and not categorized as supplies. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 10 OIG-13-33 
 

 

 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Table 3: Equipment Purchase for Grant ID 6497
 

Summary of Purchased Equipment

Equipment Unit Cost Quantity

Secure Intelligence Area 

Computers

$4,329.64 6

Secure Intelligence Area 

Computers

$3,812.09 7

Secure Intelligence Area 

Computers

 $990.00 6

STAC TV Monitors $2,084.98 2

Audio Data Jacks $6,196.84 1

STAC Software – STAC – 

Secure Intelligence Area

$7,364.87 N/A

Miscellaneous Equipment N/A N/A

Total

Total Costs

$25,977.84

$26,684.63

 $5,940.00

 $4,169.96

 $6,196.84

 $7,364.87

$19,932.11

 $96,266.25

Source: DHS OIG analysis of grant ID 6497.

OJA reported that there were multiple communications with UASI, but UASI’s 

description of the equipment did not lead OJA to believe it was for emergency 

response. OJA agreed that since STAC and the Secured Intelligence Area 

expenditures support first responder activities, the equipment should have been 

categorized as equipment in the budget and properly inventoried at the 

completion of the grant. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs Directorate, 

direct the Office of Justice Assistance to: 

Recommendation #4:

Require the Milwaukee UASI to accurately account for equipment in a Grant 

Adjustment Notice for grant ID 6497. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 11 OIG-13-33 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Recommendation #5: 

Require the Milwaukee UASI to inventory and report the Southeastern 

Wisconsin Anti-Terrorism Center equipment to the Office of Justice Assistance.

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

Management Response: FEMA concurred with recommendations 4 and 5. 

According to FEMA, grantees must comply with CFR Title 44 § 13.32 (d), 

Management requirements, which states the minimum requirements for 

managing equipment and replacement equipment purchased with grant funds. 

FEMA directed OJA to require the Milwaukee UASI to inventory and report the 

Southeastern Wisconsin Anti-Terrorism Center equipment to OJA. Additionally, 

FEMA directed OJA to incorporate procedures to its existing monitoring policy to 

ensure that all subgrantees are in compliance with property management 

requirements. These procedures must address the development of property 

management records, completion of property inventories, and equipment 

inspections. 

OJA agreed with recommendations 4 and 5. According to OJA, the City of 

Milwaukee requested a Grant Adjustment (GAN) for grant #6497 to move 

$95,758.71 from Supplies & Operating Expenses to Equipment. OJA approved 

the GAN on July 3, 2012. Once the GAN was completed, the City of Milwaukee 

submitted a revised Inventory Report on July 11, 2012. According to OJA, it 

conducted onsite monitoring of the newly inventoried equipment on July 25, 

2012, and found that all equipment on the grant is properly accounted for. 

OIG Analysis: The actions proposed by FEMA and taken by OJA are responsive to 

recommendations 4 and 5. These recommendations will remain open and 

unresolved until final implementation of the proposed corrective actions. 

Measurable Strategic Goals and Objectives 

The State of Wisconsin’s Homeland Security Strategy contains defined goals and 

objectives to use in measuring performance. The FEMA-approved State strategies 

for FYs 2008 through 2010, in most cases, contained SMART objectives and 

provided a basis to determine when the goals and objectives have been 

achieved. As a result, OJA was able to measure improvements in its projects and 

response capabilities. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 12 OIG-13-33 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

The State and Urban Area Homeland Security Strategy, Guidance on Aligning 

Strategies with the National Preparedness Goal states, “the quality of the goals 

and performance against those goals are the primary determinants of an overall 

successful strategy.” The guidance also states, “an objective sets a target level of 

performance over time expressed as a tangible, measurable objective, against 

which actual achievement can be compared, including a goal expressed as a 

quantitative standard, value or rate.” 

OJA provided us with a subledger containing all HSGP subgrants awarded during 

FYs 2008 through 2010. From these SHSP and UASI grant awards, we selected a 

judgmental sample of 35 grants distributed among eight subgrantees, including 

the City of Milwaukee, as well as Milwaukee, Waukesha, Washington, and 

Jefferson counties. We also sampled subgrants awarded to the State agencies, 

including OJA, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Military 

Affairs. OJA officials provided a document with investment justifications and the 

goals and objectives corresponding to State and UASI strategies for each grant in 

our sample. We examined the 35 grants and these documents and determined 

that OJA established measurable strategic goals and objectives. 

To test OJA’s performance measurement processes, we evaluated a sample of 

subgrantee performance measurement reporting and data submitted to OJA. 

We concluded that performance reporting and data allowed OJA to assess HSGP 

grant capabilities and improvements. 

Best Practices

OJA uses a comprehensive Web-based system to announce and process HSGP 

grants, as well as track and report on grant activity. 

Egrants System 

The Egrants system manages the grant process from inception to completion. 

OJA develops funding announcements and sends them to applicants through 

Egrants. In addition, applicants can use the system to apply for funding, report 

progress, receive notification of report due dates, and request grant modifications. 

OJA uses the system to task, assign, and show the disposition of subgrantee 

applications and to monitor workflow. Egrants is also used to track Federal 

awards by funding year and category and maintain fiscal balances and subgrantee 

budgets. Finally, Egrants enables maintenance of inventory data and captures 

measurements of grant performance. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 13 OIG-13-33 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

In September 2010, FEMA identified use of the Egrants system as a best practice

for managing grantee and subgrantee awards. During our site visits, subgrantees

expressed satisfaction with Egrants because it is easy to use and enables grant 

program administration from start to finish.

Other Concerns

We noted the following concern during our audit, but we did not consider it 

pertinent to our objective and therefore did not make a recommendation. 

Potential Conflict of Interest 

We noted a potential conflict of interest in OJA. Specifically, in December 2011, 

the Governor of Wisconsin appointed a new executive director to OJA. While 

employed full-time as the executive director of OJA, he also serves as an elected 

mayor for a city in Wisconsin. The position of mayor is a part-time, nonpartisan 

position. In his role as OJA executive director, he has authority to receive and 

disperse grant funds received from State and Federal sources. 

The Grants Administrative Guide, Section IV, Conflict of Interest, states, “No 

official or employee of the state or unit of local government or of nongovernmental recipients shall participate personally...in which award agency 

funds...are used, where to his/her knowledge, he/she or his/her immediate 

family, partners, organization other than a public agency in which he/she is 

serving as an officer, director, trustee, partner, or employee or any person or 

organization....” 

According to OJA, although potential conflicts of interest involving the new 

executive director were discussed prior to the appointment, no policy or 

mitigation procedure was formally documented. Because Wisconsin can draw 

HSGP grant funds up to 36 months from the award date, the executive director’s 

decisions could still affect funds received during the scope of our audit (FYs 2008 

through 2010). Therefore, we requested that OJA provide a disclosure statement 

to address existing or future conflicts and to resolve potential future conflicts of 

interest. 

On March 6, 2012, OJA legal counsel provided a disclosure statement and agreed 

it was theoretically possible that there could be a conflict of interest between the 

executive director’s role and his duties as mayor. OJA legal counsel also 

recommended that, as long as he is mayor, the executive director should recuse 

himself from discussion or decision making related to any application for a grant 

made by the city or any grant that in part benefits the community. To date, OJA 

www.oig.dhs.gov 14 OIG-13-33 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

has not identified any situations in which the executive director’s exercise of 

authority has led to any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 15 OIG-13-33 
 

 

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

to the Inspector General Act of 1978. This is one of a series of audit, inspection, and 

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

efficiency, and effectiveness within the Department. 

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

and spent SHSP and UASI grant funds effectively and efficiently and in compliance with 

laws, regulations, and guidance. In addition, we determined the extent to which the 

State has measured improvements in its ability to prevent, prepare for, protect against, 

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

The entire HSGP and its five interrelated grant programs fund a range of preparedness 

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

management and administration costs. We only reviewed for compliance SHSP and 

UASI equipment and programs supported by the grant funding. Appendix C contains 

information on these grant programs. 

The scope of the audit included the following programs: 

Wisconsin Homeland Security Grant Program Awards 

FYs 2008 Through 2010 

Program FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 

State Homeland

Security Program $10,640,000 $10,286,500 $9,584,902

Urban Areas

Security Initiative $4,491,000 $4,159,850 $4,159,850

Subtotal $15,131,000 $14,446,350 $13,744,752

Total

$30,511,402

$12,810,700

$43,322,102

Source: FEMA. 

The audit methodology included interviews with FEMA representatives as well as work 

at the State Administrative Agency, OJA, the urban area that received grants, and 

various subgrantee locations. To achieve our audit objective, we analyzed data, 

reviewed documentation, and interviewed the key local officials directly involved in the 

management and administration programs under the Wisconsin HSGP. We conducted 

site visits and held discussions with appropriate officials from selected State agencies, 

www.oig.dhs.gov 16 OIG-13-33 
 

 

urban areas, and local jurisdictions to determine if program grant funds were expended 

in accordance with grant requirements and OJA established priorities. 

During the audit, we contacted the following 18 entities: 

Urban Areas Security Initiative 

• Milwaukee UASI 

State Agencies 

• Department of Justice 

• Department of Military Affairs

• Office of Justice Assistance 

City/Counties

• City of Milwaukee 

• Jefferson County 

• Milwaukee County 

• Washington County 

• Waukesha County 

Local Jurisdictions and First Responders 

• City of Milwaukee Fire Department

• City of Milwaukee Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security 

• City of Milwaukee Police Department 

• Jefferson County Office of Emergency Management 

• Milwaukee County Division of Emergency Management 

• Special Weapons and Tactics Milwaukee County 

• Southeastern Wisconsin Terrorism Alert Center 

• Washington County Emergency Management Department 

• Waukesha County Office of Emergency Management 

We interviewed responsible officials, reviewed documentation supporting OJA and 

subgrantee management of the grant funds (including expenditures for equipment, 

training, and exercises), and physically inspected equipment procured with the grant 

funds. 

We reviewed a judgmental sample of grant expenditures representing approximately 

36.1 percent of the dollar value expended for FYs 2008 through 2010 grants to determine

whether the expenditures were supported and allowable under the terms of the grants. 

We judgmentally chose specific equipment items to observe at the local sites where 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

they reside. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 17 OIG-13-33 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

We conducted this performance audit between December 2011 and March 2012 

pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and according to generally 

accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and 

perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 

basis for our findings and 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 18 OIG-13-33 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

 

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

U.S, I~ l1 mtn t or lI ,"f mtl Security 

W.1$binglon. OC :<0472 

MEMORANDUM FOR: Anne L. Richards 

Assistant Inspector General for Audits 

Office of Inspector General 

FROM: David J. Kaufman fA--

Associate Administrator 

Policy, Program Analysis and International Affairs 

SUBJECT: Response 10 OIG Draft Repon, The State of Wisconsin's Managemem 

o/State Homeland Secllrily Program and Urban Areas Security 

Il1itiative (Jranls Awarded During Fiscal Years 2008 through 2010 

Thank you for the opponunity to comment on the draft repon. The fmdings in the report will be used 

to strengthen the effectiveness and ctlieiency of how we execute and measure our programs. We 

recognize the need to conti nue to improve the process, including addressing the recommendations 

raisoo in this report. OUf rt!spollses to the rccommcndations are as follows: 

Recommendation # 1: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs Directorate. 

direct the Office of Justice Assistance to update the 20 10 VASl Homeland Security Strategy 

operational plan to incl ude the goals and objectives of the rEMA approved strategy and incorporate 

into it current plan!i for sU!ilaini ng Milwauktt VAS! operations. 

FEMA Response: FEMA concurs with the recommendation. FEMA will direct Wisconsin 's Office 

of Justice Assistance (OJA) to update its State Homeland Security Strategy to incorporate goals and 

objectives for sustaining Milwaukee UASI operations. The updated Strategy should be submitted to 

their GPO Program Analyst within 120 days from receipt of the final repOlt and the grantee 

notiIil::ation memorandum. FEMA requests th<lt this recommendation be considered rC!iolved and 

open pending full implementation of the corrective action plan by the grantee. 

Recommendation #2: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs 

Directorate, direct the Office of Justice Assistance to perform timely and routine desk audits of 

Homeland Security Gnmt Program. 

FEI\1A Response: FEMA concurs with the recommendation. FEMA wi ll direct OJA to develop a 

plan for routine and time ly desk audi ts. FEMA will direct the SAA to submit this plan to their GPO 

Program Analyst within 90 days from receipt of the final report and tht: grantt:e nOlific"t ion 

www.oig.dhs.gov 19 OIG-13-33 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

 

memorandum. FEMA requests that this recommendation be considered resolved and open pending 

full implementation of the corrective actIon plan by the grantee. 

Recommendation #3: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs 

Directorate, direct the Office of Justice Assistance to incorporate steps into the desk audits, in order 

to comply with 44 CFR 13.40, for testing of grant financial controls and reporting requirements, 

procurement controls, and testing of grant expenditures, similar to the Office of Justice Assistance's 

supplemental audit guide. 

FEMA Response: FEMA concurs with the recommendation. FEMA will direct OJA to incorporate 

steps into its existing monitoring policy for desk audits. Within 90 days of the receipt of the final 

report, the_ SAA will be required to provide a revised policy to include standards in accordance with 

the CFR to ensure compliance with monitoring and reporting program perfonnance for testing grant 

financial controls and reporting requirements, procurement controls and testing of grant 

expenditures. FEMA requests that this recommendation be considered resolved and open pending 

full implementation of the corrective action plan by the grantee. 

R~ommendatioD #4: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs 

Directorate, direct the Office of Justice Assistance to require the Milwaukee UASI to accurately 

account for equipment in a Grant Adjustment Notice for grant ID 6497. 

FEMA Response: FEMA concurs with the recommendation. CPR Title 44 §13.32 (d), Management 

requirements, states the minimum requirements for managing equipment and replacement equipment 

purchased with grant fumi .... Grantees must comply with these standards in accordance with the 

applicable grant terms, conditions. and assurances. Within 90 days of the receipt of the final report, 

the 8AA will be required to provide a plan for managing grant funded property and equipment to 

their GPD Program Analyst. FEMA requests that this reconunendation be considered resolved and 

open pending full implementation of the corrective action plan by the grantee. 

Recommendation #5: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs 

Directorate, direct the Office of Justice Assistance to require the Milwaukee UAS[ to inventory and 

report the Southeastern Wisconsin Anti*Terronsm Center equipment to the Office of Justice 

Assistance. 

FEMA Response: FEMA concurs with the recommendation. Within 90 days of receipt of this final 

report, FEMA directs OJA to require the Milwaukee lJA..<;I to inventory and report the Southeastern 

Wisconsin Anti-Terrorism Center equipment to 01A. Additionally, FEMA directs OJA to 

incorporate procedures to its existing monitoring policy to ensure that all sub-grantees are in 

compliance with property management requirements within 90 days of receipt of this report. These 

procedures must address the development of property management records, completion of property 

inventories, and equipment inspections. FEMA requests that this recommendation be considered 

resolved and open pending full implementation of the corrective action plan by the grantee. 

Again, we thank you for the opportunity to address the recommendations contained in this report. If 

you have any questions regarding ow- response, please do not hesitate to call FEMA's Audit Liaison 

point of cont""!, Gina Norton, at 202-646-4287. 

 

www.oig.dhs.gov 20 OIG-13-33 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

 

State of Wise on sill 

SCOT\' WALKER 

GU"~fIlU r 

OFFICQ ~~CE ASSISTANCE JOHN i\WRRA Y 

E.\:ecu tive Director 

1 S Pincl:ney Stl..,ct Pho~ ' (('()8) 266·3321 Suit. 515 fax ((·m)2{,6·6676 Madison W1537OJ·32~O htt]"l ~.'fop '" gov 

October 10, 2012 

Deputy Anne L. Rich<lrds 

Assistantlnspeetor General of Audits 

Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Dear Ms. Richards: 

Thank you ior the OPJXlr!unity to respond to the audit finding listed in the Draft Report of the State of 

Wisconsin Management of State Homeland Security Program and Urban Area Security Initiatives Grants 

2008-2010 AudiL. 

Recommendation #1: 

Updale the 2010 VASI Homeland Security Strategy operational plan to include the goals and objectives 

of the FEMA·approved strategy and incorpur~le into it current plans for sustainirg Milwaukee UASI 

operations. 

OJA Response: 

OJA agrees with the recommendation. OJA received an updated 2010 Strategy from Ihe Milwaukee 

UASI on October 8, 2012 and forwarded it to FErM on October 9, 2012 for revievi and a~roval. This is 

the same strotcgy that UASI Executive Committee ' ..... orked orf to create the UASI spending plan in 

accordance with stele strategy. 

Recommendation #2: 

Perform timely and routine desk auc'lts of Homeland Security Grant Program grarts, 

OJA Response: 

OJA agrees with the recommendation. The Office of Justice Assistance is pleased to report that it has 

completed desk monitoring's of all 62 FY2008 throL'gh 2010 HSGP grants selected for re\iiew that were 

not complete as of the conciusiOll of DIG's fieldwork. OJA is committed to ensuring thai desk monitors for 

HSGP grants <'lre performed timely and routinely and, to that end, is evaluating modiflcatic-ns to the desk 

monitoring process. Among the changes being considejed is an increase in the number of times during 

the year that desk monitoring \''{ould be performed, Desk monitors are currently periormed once per year 

with information requested in August for payments made in the prior calendar year. Incre<.Jsing the 

frequency wi I spread the desk monitors over the year mcking the worklcad more manageable. 

Maintaining a 20% desk monitoring level should be attainable in the future because Wisconsin·s 

Homeland Security funding has dropped 83% between 2008 and 2012 which will substantially decrease 

the number of subgranls to he monitored 

www.oig.dhs.gov 21 OIG-13-33 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

 

Recommendation 1#3: 

Incorporate steps Into the desk audits, in order to comply with 44 CFR 13.40, for testing of grant financial 

controls and reporting requirements, procurement controls, and testing of gmnt expendituros, similar to 

the Offce of Justice Assi:;tance's supplemental audit guide. 

O.JA Response: 

OJA partially agrees with the recom mendation. As noted by the OIG, 44 CFR 13.40. FElv1A's codification 

of the grants management common f1Jle, reqLires grantees to lJe respon51Jle for monitoring sU~g'aniees' 

use of federal awards through reporting s te visits , reguler contact, or other means to provide reasonable 

assurance that Ina subgrantees adminislar federal awards in compliance with laws, rogulotions, and the 

pro'/isions of conlrac:s or grant agreements, and that perfonnance goals are achieved. The Office of 

Juslice Assistance's comprehensive approach 10 monitor 119 subrecipienls, which was descrihFic1 ln I'l~rt 

by the D IG, conslsts of: 

Requiring and reviewing periodic financiel repons of all subrecip ents including tre review of all 

backup documentation with each reimlJurselnenl. 

Requiring and reviewing periodic performance reports of a I sLbrecipients. 

Desk monitoring of twenly pBfcenl oi non-equipment grant subrecipierts on a calendar year 

basis. 

Compliance on-site visits to all equipment grants upon clo!\eolJl, c;fter equipment Is Invoiced, 

installed and inventoried 

Regular contact between OJI\'s grant odministrotion staff and subrecipients . 

In addition 10 the complehellsive monitoring proc€!\s ::Ibove, silborantees who meet the threshold receive 

an A-133 audit. Thi;; comprehensive process was recognized by FEMA as a best practice in the 2009 

and 2011 FEMA mar itars. 

The OIG Audit report uses the terms 'audit' and rnoni lor' interchangeably anri they are very different 

things. OJA would like to correct that we do not conduct Desk Audits; ralher, we conduct Desk Monitors. 

The Office of Justice Assislance believes Ihat it meels its obi gations uncer 44 CFR 13.40, but 

nonethe'ess is considering the following ellhancement to provide greaier as!\ur::lnces of compliance' 

Creating weighting within Ire criteria for selecting Iwenly percent of grants for desk monitoring to 

consider wnelher the subrecipie1t had a major 5 ngle audit firding over the last 2 years. If Irey 

did not have a major Clud I w'thin ihe last 2 years ac1dltional questions relating to existing controls 

will be asked. 

Through the current monitor ng procedures and impemell!<;llion of this improvement, we be leve thaI we 

will be ::Ih'e to provide reasonable assurance and comply with 44 CFR 13.40. 

Recommendation #4: 

Require the Milwaukee UASl to accurately account for equipment In a Gr:?nt AdjLstment Notice for grant 

10 6497. 

OJA Response: 

OJA agrees with the recommendation . The City of MilVJaukee requested a Grant Adjustment (GAN) for 

granl #6497 10 move $95,758.71 from Supplies & Operating Expenses to Equipment. OJ/\ approved the 

G/IN on 7/31201 2. 

Recommendation 11 5: 

Require the M'lwaukee UA$l to inventory and report the Soutrcastern Wisconsin Anti-Terrorism Center 

equipmert 10 the Office of Justice Assistorcc. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 22 OIG-13-33 
 O

 

FFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

 

Page 3 

OJA Response: 

OJA agrees with the recommenda:ion. Once the Grant Adjustmellt Notice \'VaS comple~ed to move 

$95,758.71 from Supplies & OperClting Expenses to Equipment, the City of Milwaukee submitted <) 

revised Invenlury Report on 7/11/2012. OJA conducted an on·site monitor of the newly inventoried 

equipment on 7125t201J! and found that all equipment on the grant is properly accountetJ fur. 

If you have further questions or comments, feel free to contact Darcey Varese, Financial Officer (608) 

266-9653. 

Sincere,):, 

ft!:r!Y~ Executive Director 

www.oig.dhs.gov 23 OIG-13-33 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix C 

Homeland Security Grant Program 

The Homeland Security Grant Program provides Federal funding to help State and local 

agencies enhance their capabilities to prevent, deter, respond to, and recover from 

terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies. The Homeland Security Grant 

Program 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: 

State Homeland Security Program provides financial assistance directly to each of the 

States and U.S. 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 the identified planning, equipment, training, and 

exercise needs. 

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 State Homeland Security Strategy. Funding is expended 

based on the Urban Area Homeland Security Strategies. 

In addition, the Homeland Security Grant Program 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

www.oig.dhs.gov 24 OIG-13-33 
 

 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix D 

Wisconsin Homeland Security Council – Participating State and 

Local Agencies 

The Wisconsin Homeland Security Council was created in 2003 to address the State’s 

ability to prepare for and respond to threats to Wisconsin homeland security. The 13-

member council is responsible for advising the Governor, coordinating State and local 

prevention and response efforts, and producing periodic reports on the state of 

homeland security in Wisconsin. 

Participating Wisconsin State and local agencies:

• Badger State Sheriffs Association 

• Department of Administration – Division of Capital Police 

• Department of Administration – Division of Enterprise Technology 

• Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection 

• Department of Health Services – Division of Public Health 

• Department of Justice – Division of Criminal Investigation 

• Department of Military Affairs – Wisconsin Emergency Management 

• Department of Natural Resources 

• Department of Transportation – Wisconsin State Patrol 

• Office of Justice Assistance 

• Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association

• Wisconsin Homeland Security Advisor – Wisconsin Adjutant General

• Wisconsin State Fire Chiefs Association 

www.oig.dhs.gov 25 OIG-13-33 
 

 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix E 

Major Contributors to This Report 

Alexander Best, Director 

Patrick Tobo, Audit Manager 

Stephen Doran, Auditor-In-Charge 

Corneliu Buzesan, Program Analyst 

April Evans, Program Analyst 

Hortencia Francis, Program Analyst 

Falon Newman-Duckworth, Program Analyst 

Kristine Odina, Referencer 

Kelly Herberger, Communications Analyst

www.oig.dhs.gov 26 OIG-13-33 
 

 

 

 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 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 27 OIG-13-33 
 

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.