SOUTHWEST BORDER 

PROSECUTION INITIATIVE 

REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Audit Division 

Audit Report 08-22 

March 2008

SOUTHWEST BORDER PROSECUTION INITIATIVE 

REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The U.S. border with Mexico extends nearly 2,000 miles along the 

southern borders of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. The 

Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, has 

primary federal responsibility for detecting and preventing illegal entry into 

the United States. At the same time, the Department of Justice (DOJ) plays 

an important role in border enforcement through prosecution, detainment, 

and incarceration of individuals who violate federal criminal laws related to 

alien smuggling, firearms trafficking, illegal immigration, and illegal drug 

importation. 

 

In 1994, U.S. Attorney Offices along the Southwest Border began to 

establish partnerships with state and county prosecutors through which 

states and local governments began prosecuting federally initiated drug 

cases resulting from the illegal importation of controlled substances at the 

Southwest Border. As the number of federally declined criminal cases 

prosecuted by state and local governments began to increase, so did the 

related financial and resource burden on the states and localities. As a 

result, in fiscal year (FY) 1998, state and local prosecutors along the 

Southwest Border began informing the DOJ that they would no longer be 

able to prosecute federally initiated cases unless they received federal funds. 

To address these concerns, in 2000 Congress passed Public Law 106-246 to 

provide FY 2001 funding to state, county, parish, tribal, and municipal 

governments to reimburse them for costs associated with the prosecution 

and pre-trial detention of federally initiated illegal immigration and drug and 

alien smuggling cases that subsequently are declined by the U.S. Attorneys 

offices and instead referred to state and local jurisdictions. However, none 

of the subsequent appropriations limit the types of federally initiated cases 

that are allowable for reimbursement. As a result, any federally initiated 

case that is declined by the U.S. Attorneys offices and subsequently 

prosecuted by an eligible state or local jurisdiction is allowable for 

reimbursement. 

 

Initially, the program was administered by the Executive Office for 

United States Attorneys (EOUSA) in DOJ. However, in FY 2002 the 

management of the Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative (SWBPI) was 

transferred to the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), DOJ’s grant-making arm. 
- ii - 

From October 1, 2001, through September 31, 2006, OJP provided 

reimbursements totaling $161.13 million to the four Southwest Border states 

and local jurisdictions, as shown in Table 1. 

TABLE 1. 

SWBPI REIMBURSEMENTS (DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)1

STATES FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 TOTALS

Arizona $ 3.00 $ 3.41 $ 2.14 $ 1.70 $ 2.70 $ 12.95 

California 18.45 15.63 12.78 13.00 16.32 76.19 

New Mexico 5.75 8.45 6.54 6.26 3.59 30.58 

Texas 11.77 11.07 6.82 7.04 4.71 41.41 

SWBPI Totals $38.97 $38.55 $28.28 $28.00 $27.33 $161.13 

Source: Office of Justice Programs 

SWBPI Guidelines 

Eligible SWBPI applicants submit quarterly electronic applications for 

reimbursement through the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) SWBPI 

website. On the reimbursement applications, SWBPI recipients list the total 

number of cases in each of the three major categories based on the types of 

services provided: (1) prosecution only, (2) pre-trial detention only, and 

(3) both prosecution and pre-trial detention. The three major service 

categories are further broken down into four reimbursement categories 

based on the length of disposition: (1) 1 to 15 days, (2) 16 to 30 days, 

(3) 31 to 90 days, and (4) over 90 days.2

 

BJA does not require SWBPI applicants to provide documentation 

supporting the number of cases submitted for reimbursement through the 

electronic application. However, jurisdictions that receive SWBPI funds are 

required to retain documentation supporting the reimbursement requests for 

3 years from the date the application is approved. 

 1

 Throughout this report, differences in the total amounts are due to rounding. 

2

 Case disposition is the length of time between a suspect’s arrest and the resolution 

(e.g., dismissal, plea, conviction) of the criminal charges through a county or state judicial 

process. 
- iii - 

Reimbursement Amounts 

Each eligible case may receive the following maximum reimbursement, 

based upon length of disposition, availability of funds, and the provision of 

both prosecution services and pre-trial detention services. 

TABLE 2. 

MAXIMUM SWBPI REIMBURSEMENTS

LENGTH OF DISPOSITION

MAXIMUM 

REIMBURSEMENT

1 to 15 Days $ 2,500 

16 to 30 Days 5,000 

31 to 90 Days 7,500 

Over 90 Days 10,000 

Source: OJP 

To calculate the reimbursement amount for cases submitted for both 

prosecution and pre-trial detention services, the length of the prosecution 

takes precedence in calculating the case disposition category. For 

prosecution only and pre-trial detention only cases, each eligible case may 

receive 50 percent of the maximum reimbursement. 

Case Eligibility 

To be eligible for reimbursement under the SWBPI program, each case 

submitted must meet the following criteria. 

• The case must be initiated by a federal law enforcement agency. 

• The case must be declined for federal prosecution and referred to the 

local jurisdiction for prosecution. 

• The case must be prosecuted by a state or local jurisdiction. 

• The case must be disposed of during an eligible reporting period. 

In addition, on each quarterly application the jurisdiction’s Chief 

Executive Officer (CEO) or designee must certify that the total amount 

requested for reimbursement, when combined with other federal funding, 

does not exceed 100 percent of the jurisdiction’s annualized costs for SWBPI 

prosecution and pre-trial detention services. Further, the CEO or designee 
- iv - 

must certify that the SWBPI claim has been adjusted to account for 

additional prosecution and pre-trial detention funding received through other 

federal programs. 

Recent Guidance 

 Our audit generally covered SWBPI reimbursements awarded from 

FYs 2002 through 2006.3 Therefore, we used the SWBPI guidelines in effect 

during the period covered by our audit when conducting our analysis. 

However, in July 2007 OJP updated the SWBPI guidelines and made the 

following changes: 

• The new guidelines no longer state that recipients cannot receive 

reimbursements in excess of 100 percent of their actual annualized 

costs. Nonetheless, at the time SWBPI reimbursement applications 

are submitted, the jurisdiction’s CEO or designee is still required to 

certify that, “This application does not contain payment claims for 

cases already fully reimbursed by federal funds, or when combined 

with other federal reimbursement, grant, or payment funds, does not 

make payment claims in excess of 100 percent of the cost of 

prosecuting and or detaining case defendants in the reporting period.” 

• The July 2007 guidelines no longer contain the statement that when a 

case is submitted under the “both” category, the prosecution timeline 

takes precedence in determining the case reimbursement category. 

However, the OJP application still allows for cases to be submitted 

under the “both” category rather than requiring that prosecution and 

pre-trial detention reimbursements be submitted separately. 

• The July 2007 guidelines specify that new cases resulting from 

probation or parole violations and revocation hearings resulting from a 

previously reimbursed SWBPI case are not eligible for reimbursement. 

Further, extradition cases are also not eligible for reimbursement. 

Although none of these types of cases would have been eligible for 

reimbursement under the previous guidelines, the revised guidelines 

ensure that jurisdictions are aware of the fact that these types of 

cases are ineligible. 

 

 3

 OJP has accepted applications for all of FY 2007, but as of January 31, 2008, had 

not made any reimbursements for FY 2007 SWBPI submissions. 
- v - 

Prior Reports 

Prior to the initiation of this audit, the OIG conducted three previous 

audits of individual SWBPI recipients to determine if the reimbursement 

requests submitted were allowable, supported, and in accordance with 

applicable laws, regulations, guidelines, and terms and conditions of SWBPI. 

The prior audits included review of the: (1) New Mexico Department of 

Public Safety (New Mexico DPS); (2) Yuma County Attorney’s Office, Arizona 

(Yuma County); and (3) Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Arizona 

(Maricopa County).4

 Taken together, the prior SWBPI audits revealed 

dollar-related findings totaling over $1.6 million. 

Additionally, for the past 8 years grant management has been 

identified by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) as one of DOJ’s top 

10 management and performance challenges. Specifically, the OIG has 

reported that grant management continues to be a challenge for the 

following reasons: 

• OIG reviews continue to find that many grantees do not submit 

required financial and progress reports or do not submit them in a 

timely manner; 

• Numerous deficiencies continue to be found in DOJ’s monitoring of 

grantee activities; 

• OIG audits found that grant funds were not regularly awarded in a 

timely manner and that grantees were slow to spend available monies; 

and 

• OIG audits of grants have resulted in significant dollar-related findings. 

Although SWBPI is a reimbursement program rather than a grant 

program, in our judgment the same concerns related to OJP’s management 

and oversight of the program exist. 

Audit Approach 

 We initiated this audit of SWBPI to: 

• Evaluate OJP’s administration and management of SWBPI 

reimbursements; 

 4

 Our audit of the New Mexico DPS included the 2nd, 3rd, and 11th Judicial Districts. 
- vi - 

• Identify additional federal programs with overlapping objectives; and 

• Determine if SWBPI reimbursement requests submitted by eligible 

jurisdictions are allowable, supported, and in accordance with 

applicable laws, regulations, guidelines, and terms and conditions of 

the SWBPI program. 

The audit generally covered, but is not limited to, SWBPI 

reimbursements awarded from FYs 2002 through 2006. Audit work was 

conducted at OJP; the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP); the 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF); the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA); the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

(FBI); and EOUSA. 

Additionally, we conducted seven external audits of SWBPI recipients 

to determine if SWBPI reimbursements were allowable, supported, and in 

accordance with applicable laws, regulations, guidelines, and terms and 

conditions of the SWBPI program. The external audits were conducted at 

the following selected SWBPI recipients: (1) New Mexico DPS; (2) Yuma 

County; (3) Maricopa County; (4) El Paso County Auditor’s Office, Texas 

(El Paso County); (5) San Diego District Attorney’s Office, California 

(San Diego); (6) Brooks County, Texas (Brooks County); and (7) City and 

County of San Francisco, California (San Francisco). 

Results in Brief 

We found that OJP does not adequately oversee the SWBPI program. 

Specifically: 

• OJP does not require applicants to provide documentation supporting 

reimbursement requests. In our judgment, most of the unallowable 

and unsupported reimbursements totaling $15.57 million, or 

28 percent of the total reimbursements audited, identified in our seven 

external audits could have been avoided if OJP required applicants to 

submit supporting documents.5

 

• OJP does not review the applications for accuracy or monitor recipients 

to determine the eligibility of cases submitted for reimbursement. 

 5

 It should be noted that the dollar-related findings identified in our reviews of the 

seven SWBPI recipients were addressed in separate external audit reports. Thus, we are 

not offering any recommendations in this report specific to the $15.57 million in unallowable 

and unsupported reimbursements and $27,500 in funds to be put to better use. 
- vii - 

• Reimbursements are not linked to actual costs incurred by the 

jurisdictions to prosecute federally declined-referred criminal cases.6

• OJP has not taken action to identify potential duplicate funding 

between the SWBPI program and other federally funded prosecution 

and pre-trial detention programs. 

As noted above, SWBPI is intended to reimburse state and local 

governments for their costs associated with the prosecution and pre-trial 

detention of federally initiated criminal cases. Accordingly, on every SWBPI 

reimbursement application, the jurisdiction’s CEO or designee certifies that 

the SWBPI claim, combined with other federal funding, does not exceed 

100 percent of the cost of prosecuting and detaining case defendants in the 

reporting period. However, we found that none of the seven jurisdictions 

included in our audit maintained any documentation to support costs 

associated with SWBPI cases submitted for reimbursement, resulting in 

reimbursements totaling $49.78 million in excess of supported annualized 

costs. In our judgment, this is not consistent with the intent of the program 

to reimburse states and localities for their costs. 

Additionally, on every SWBPI reimbursement application the 

jurisdiction’s CEO or designee is required to certify that the SWBPI claim has 

been adjusted to account for additional prosecution and pre-trial detention 

funding received through other federal programs. However, we found that 

with the exception of El Paso County, none of the jurisdictions included in 

our audit who received additional federal funding for prosecution and 

pre-trial detention services took any steps to ensure that the SWBPI 

reimbursements, when combined with additional federal funding, did not 

exceed the cost to prosecute the SWBPI cases.7

 

In our judgment, the jurisdictions included in our audit made 

unsupported certifications in each quarterly SWBPI reimbursement 

application that: (1) the total federal funds provided to the jurisdiction for 

SWBPI cases during the reporting period did not exceed 100 percent of the 

jurisdiction’s annualized costs for prosecution services; and (2) the SWBPI 

 6

 Declined-referred is a term used in the SWBPI guidelines to refer to a point in time 

during a federal investigation when a U.S. Attorney or federal law enforcement official 

decides not to pursue federal criminal charges against a defendant (declination) and 

requests that a state or local jurisdiction prosecute the defendant for violating state or local 

criminal statutes (referral). 

7

 Although El Paso County did not track its costs to prosecute SWBPI cases, 

$1.51 million was deducted from its SWBPI reimbursement requests in an attempt to ensure 

that federal funding did not exceed 100 percent of the costs associated with the cases 

submitted. 
- viii - 

claim has been adjusted to account for additional funding received through 

other federal reimbursement or grant programs. 

Finally, our external audits of the seven SWBPI recipients, who 

together received reimbursements totaling $55.11 million over a 5-year 

period, identified unallowable and unsupported SWBPI reimbursements of 

$15.57 million, which equates to 28 percent of the total reimbursements.8

The importance of the issues identified in our audit are reinforced by 

the fact that, as of the 4th quarter of FY 2006, OJP was only able to 

reimburse SWBPI applicants for 44 percent of the total maximum 

reimbursement amount because reimbursement requests exceeded available 

funding. If OJP ensured that only eligible cases were reimbursed and 

reimbursements were linked to the actual costs to prosecute and detain 

SWBPI defendants, additional funds would be available to more fully 

reimburse existing SWBPI jurisdictions for the actual costs of eligible cases.9

In our report, we make 13 recommendations to improve OJP’s 

management of the SWBPI program to ensure that reimbursement requests 

are limited to eligible cases; linked to and do not exceed actual costs; and 

adjusted to account for funds received from other federal prosecution and 

detention funding programs. 

Our report contains detailed information on the full results of our 

review of the Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative Reimbursement 

Program. The remaining sections of this Executive Summary describe in 

more detail our audit findings. 

OJP’s Administration and Oversight of the Reimbursements 

 Our audit results revealed that OJP is not adequately overseeing the 

SWBPI program. We found that OJP does not require applicants to provide 

documentation supporting reimbursement requests. In our judgment, most 

of the unallowable and unsupported reimbursements totaling $15.57 million, 

or 28 percent of the total reimbursements audited, identified in our seven 

 8

 We also identified funds to be put to better use totaling $27,500 related to 

unsupported and ineligible cases submitted for reimbursement that had not yet been paid. 

9

 No jurisdictions were reimbursed in the 4th quarter of FY 2004 because no funds 

were available. In addition, for the quarters ended December 31, 2004, March 31, 2005, 

June 30, 2005, September 30, 2005, December 31, 2005, March 31, 2006, June 30, 2006, 

and September 30, 2006, SWBPI recipients received pro-rata reimbursements of 

49.29 percent, 44.08 percent, 47.40 percent, 50.16 percent, 53.18 percent, 47.61 percent, 

43.09 percent, and 44.05 percent respectively. 
- ix - 

external audits could have been avoided if OJP required applicants to submit 

supporting documents.10 Additionally, OJP does not review SWBPI 

reimbursement applications for accuracy or conduct any monitoring activities 

of recipients to determine the eligibility of cases submitted for 

reimbursement. 

In our judgment, OJP must require SWBPI recipients to submit a list of 

cases in support of the reimbursement requests. This list should include 

sufficient information to verify the eligibility of the cases submitted for 

reimbursement, including: (1) case number, (2) defendant name, (3) arrest 

date, (4) disposition date, (5) initiating federal law enforcement agency, and 

(6) referring federal agency. Additionally, for pre-trial detention 

reimbursements the case list should include the defendant booking date and 

release date. This is consistent with the requirements of other 

reimbursement programs administered by OJP, such as the State Criminal 

Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), which requires a list of inmates, 

identifying information, and the length of detention. 

Additionally, OJP should review reimbursement requests and the 

supporting case list to ensure that the number of cases submitted for 

reimbursement is accurate and that all cases submitted are eligible for 

reimbursement. Further, OJP should conduct monitoring activities of SWBPI 

recipients. 

Reimbursement Not Linked To Actual Costs 

We found that reimbursements were not based on actual costs 

incurred by the jurisdictions to prosecute federally declined-referred criminal 

cases. We asked OJP officials to provide information on the methodology 

used to develop the reimbursement categories and corresponding amounts. 

However, they were unable to provide us with information regarding the 

basis used in establishing the reimbursement amounts. 

We also conducted limited testing at the seven SWBPI recipients 

included in our audit to determine the correlation between reimbursement 

categories and actual costs for prosecution and detention. Based on our 

analysis, we found that SWBPI recipients received reimbursements totaling 

$49.78 million in excess of supported annualized costs. The significant 

amount of SWBPI reimbursements in excess of supported costs was 

 10 It should be noted that the dollar-related findings identified in our reviews of the 

seven SWBPI recipients were addressed in separate external audit reports. Thus, we are 

not offering any recommendations in this report specific to the $15.57 million in unallowable 

and unsupported reimbursements and $27,500 in funds to be put to better use. 
- x - 

predominately due to the fact that none of the jurisdictions included in our 

audit tracked or maintained data supporting the costs associated with 

prosecuting SWBPI cases. However, each jurisdiction was able to provide 

documentation to support their actual cost per day for pre-trial detention 

services. As a result, we were able to calculate the actual annualized 

pre-trial detention costs for SWBPI cases. 

Pursuant to the FY 2002 Appropriations Act and all subsequent DOJ 

appropriations, SWBPI is intended to reimburse states and localities for 

prosecution and pre-trial detention costs associated with federally initiated 

criminal cases. Accordingly, on each SWBPI application the recipient 

certified that total federal reimbursements did not exceed 100 percent of 

actual prosecution and pre-trial detention costs for SWBPI cases. 

Nevertheless, as noted above, we found that SWBPI recipients received 

reimbursements of $49.78 million in excess of supported costs. In our 

judgment, this is inconsistent with a statutory scheme that is intended to 

reimburse recipients for actual costs. 

In our view, OJP should obtain sufficient cost data from each SWBPI 

recipient to ensure that reimbursements are linked to actual costs associated 

with SWBPI cases. We do not believe it necessary for SWBPI recipients to 

create elaborate cost accounting systems to determine the actual costs for 

each case. However, each recipient should at least track and maintain 

sufficient data on the costs associated with SWBPI cases to support its 

certification that total federal funds received do not exceed 100 percent of 

the annualized costs for its SWBPI cases. This is consistent with the 

requirements of other reimbursement programs administered by OJP, such 

as SCAAP, which requires that recipients provide actual cost information to 

determine the per day reimbursement rate. 

 

We also found the reimbursements were not linked to actual costs 

because of the current policy of basing reimbursements for cases submitted 

under the “both” prosecution and pre-trial detention category on the number 

of days to prosecute the case, regardless of the length of time the defendant 

was detained. Our analysis of cases submitted under the over-90 day “both” 

category revealed that on average pre-trial detention services for 69 percent 

of these cases would have been reimbursed at a lesser amount based on the 

number of days the defendant was detained. 

Additionally, prosecution services are reimbursed at the same amounts 

as pre-trial services, even though there is no evidence that prosecution and 

pre-trial detention costs are similar and therefore should be reimbursed at 

the same rate. Further, there is no evidence that these amounts accurately 
- xi - 

reflect the actual average prosecution and detention costs for each 

Southwest Border jurisdiction. 

As stated previously, none of the seven jurisdictions included in our 

audit tracked the costs to prosecute SWBPI cases. However, we were able 

to obtain the daily pre-trial detention costs for six of the seven 

jurisdictions.11 Based on our analysis of the daily pre-trial detention rates, 

we determined that daily detention rates among the six jurisdictions ranged 

from $110.69 per day in San Diego, to $46.00 per day in Brooks County, a 

difference of $64.69 per day. We also found that the average daily 

detention reimbursement rate among the six jurisdictions included in our 

audit was $71.57. However, the average daily SWBPI detention 

reimbursements for the 1 to 15, 16 to 30, and 31 to 90 day reimbursement 

categories are $206.98, $112.79, and $67.97 respectively, which in general 

is significantly higher than the actual average daily detention rates for the 

SWBPI recipients. 

SWBPI reimbursements are also based on the number of days the case 

was open rather than the time and effort spent on prosecuting the case 

which, in our judgment, does not accurately reflect actual prosecution costs 

because SWBPI cases vary in complexity. For example, in a simple case 

related to the possession of a controlled substance by a sole defendant, the 

prosecutor may expend very little time and effort, compared to a complex 

case with multiple defendants that may involve significantly more time and 

effort on the part of the prosecutor. However, the trial date for both cases 

may be set for more than 90 days after the defendant was arrested. 

Therefore, both cases would be reimbursed at the “over 90 day” rate, even 

though the actual costs associated with prosecuting the cases were vastly 

different. 

Finally, in our judgment using the number of days the defendant is 

detained is an accurate measure of the pre-trial detention costs for SWBPI 

cases. However, because SWBPI reimbursements are based on a broad 

range of days rather than the actual number of days, generally 

reimbursements for pre-trial detention services far exceed actual costs. For 

example, for pre-trial detention only cases that fall into the 1 to 15 day 

reimbursement category, the daily pre-trial detention reimbursements range 

from $625 per day to $83 per day; the daily pre-trial detention 

reimbursements for the 16 to 30 day category range from $156 per day to 

$83 per day; and the daily pre-trial detention reimbursements for the 31 to 

90 day category range from $121 per day to $42 per day depending on the 

 11 We did not obtain daily pre-trial detention costs from the New Mexico DPS 

because it only submits reimbursement requests for prosecution services. 
- xii - 

number of days the defendant was actually detained. However, the average 

daily detention rate for the jurisdictions included in our audit was $71.57 per 

day. Therefore, using the broad range of days rather than the actual 

number of days for SWBPI pre-trial detention reimbursements can result in 

reimbursements far in excess of actual costs. 

In sum, as a result of not linking reimbursement rates to actual costs, 

jurisdictions may receive reimbursements in excess of their actual costs. As 

of the 4th quarter of FY 2006, SWBPI applicants only received 44 percent of 

the maximum reimbursement amount because reimbursement requests 

exceeded available funding.12 If OJP ensured that only eligible cases were 

reimbursed and reimbursements were linked to the actual costs to prosecute 

and detain SWBPI defendants, additional funds would be available to more 

fully reimburse actual costs for eligible cases. 

 

Additional Federal Programs with Overlapping Objectives 

At the time the SWBPI reimbursement applications are submitted, the 

jurisdiction’s CEO or designee is required to certify that the SWBPI claim has 

been adjusted to account for additional prosecution and pre-trial detention 

funding received through other federal programs. We found that only one of 

the seven jurisdictions included in our audit took steps to adjust their claims 

to account for additional funding from overlapping federal programs, and 

that OJP has not taken action to identify potential duplicate funding between 

the SWBPI program and other federal programs. 

We identified three major federal programs that provide funding to 

state and local jurisdictions for prosecution and detention services, each of 

which may partially duplicate funding provided through the SWBPI program. 

These programs are ONDCP High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) 

Drug Prosecution Initiatives, OJP’s Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance 

Grant Program (Byrne Grant Program), and the Department of Homeland 

Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (DHS ICE), 

SCAAP.13 

 12 No jurisdictions were reimbursed in the 4th quarter of FY 2004 because no funds 

were available. In addition, for the quarters ended December 31, 2004, March 31, 2005, 

June 30, 2005, September 30, 2005, December 31, 2005, March 31, 2006, June 30, 2006, 

and September 30, 2006, SWBPI recipients received pro-rata reimbursements of 

49.29 percent, 44.08 percent, 47.40 percent, 50.16 percent, 53.18 percent, 47.61 percent, 

43.09 percent, and 44.05 percent respectively. 

13 The Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 

2005 merged the Byrne Grant Program with the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant 

Program (LLEBG) to create the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program. 
- xiii - 

Federal Prosecution Funding 

In addition to SWBPI reimbursements, we determined that six of the 

seven jurisdictions included in our audit also received HIDTA, Byrne grant, 

and other federal prosecution funds totaling $27 million during the review 

period, as shown in Table 3.14

TABLE 3.

PROSECUTION GRANTS RECEIVED BY SWBPI RECIPIENTS 

(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS) 

SITE HIDTA BYRNE OTHER TOTAL

El Paso County $ 2.28 - $ 2.07 $ 4.35 

New Mexico DPS 2.64 - 6.07 $ 8.71 

Maricopa County 1.64 4.70 - $ 6.34 

Yuma County 1.64 1.78 - $ 3.41 

San Diego 2.40 - 0.13 $ 2.52 

San Francisco - 1.86 - $ 1.86 

Brooks County - - - - 

TOTAL $10.60 $ 8.34 $ 8.27 $27.19 

Source: OJP, ONDCP, and SWBPI recipients

With the exception of El Paso County, none of the six other 

jurisdictions included in our audit took steps to ensure that the SWBPI 

reimbursements, when combined with additional federal funding received for 

prosecution and pre-trial detention services, did not exceed the cost to 

prosecute the SWBPI cases. Although El Paso County did not track its costs 

to prosecute SWBPI cases, it deducted $1.51 million from its SWBPI 

reimbursement requests in an attempt to ensure that federal funding did not 

exceed 100 percent of the costs to prosecute the SWBPI case. 

 14 The other grants are Criminal Enterprise Unit Grant, Drug Prosecution Grant, 

Rural Domestic Violence Grant, and the Community Gun Violence Program. 
- xiv - 

Federal Detention Funding 

OJP also administers SCAAP in conjunction with the DHS ICE. SCAAP 

provides federal payments to states and localities that incur correctional 

officer salary costs for incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens. Since 

the SWBPI program also includes reimbursement for pre-trial detention 

services, we looked at the possibility of duplicate funding between SCAAP 

and the SWBPI. 

We found that four of the seven jurisdictions included in our audit 

received SCAAP funds totaling $95,559 for pre-trial detention services 

provided in SWBPI cases submitted for reimbursement.15 However, we 

found that none of the jurisdictions had taken any action to ensure they 

were not receiving duplicate SCAAP funds for these same cases. 

In our judgment, the jurisdictions included in our audit made 

unsupported certifications in each quarterly SWBPI reimbursement 

application because they did not adjust their claims to account for the total 

additional funding received through other federal reimbursement or grant 

programs.16 

We met with OJP officials to discuss the possibility of duplicate funding 

between the SWBPI program and other federal programs that provide 

funding for prosecution and pre-trial detention services. Based on our 

discussion, we found that OJP has not taken any action to identify any 

potential duplicate funding between the three programs. Specifically, the 

OJP official responsible for both the SWBPI program and SCAAP stated that 

there is not enough information collected from the SWBPI reimbursements 

to identify any such duplicate funding. 

In our opinion, OJP should ensure that recipients make the necessary 

adjustments to the SWBPI applications to account for other federal 

prosecution and pre-trial detention funding. In addition, OJP should review 

 15 We did not analyze possible duplicate SCAAP funding for the New Mexico DPS 

because it only submits reimbursement requests for prosecution services. As a result, our 

audit only included SWBPI reimbursements for prosecution services. SWBPI pre-trial 

detention reimbursement requests are submitted through the State of New Mexico’s 

counties. Also, we did not analyze possible duplicate funding for Brooks County or San 

Francisco. Brooks County did not receive SCAAP funding between FYs 2002 through 2006 

and San Francisco did not provide a listing of SWBPI cases submitted for reimbursements. 

16 Although El Paso County did not track its costs to prosecute SWBPI cases, it 

deducted $1.51 million from its SWBPI reimbursement requests in an attempt to ensure 

that federal funding did not exceed 100 percent of the costs to prosecute the SWBPI case. 

However El Paso County did not make any adjustments for SCAAP payments they received. 
- xv - 

SWBPI reimbursement applications to identify potential duplicate funding 

requests. 

Allowability of Reimbursements 

We conducted seven external audits of individual SWBPI recipients to 

determine if SWBPI reimbursements were allowable, supported, and in 

accordance with applicable laws, regulations, guidelines, and terms and 

conditions of the SWBPI program. Our audits covered SWBPI 

reimbursements totaling $55.11 million and identified unallowable and 

unsupported SWBPI reimbursements of $15.57 million, which equates to 

28 percent of the total reimbursements.17 In our judgment, the significant 

amount of dollar-related findings identified during our audits of SWBPI 

recipients is due in part to the fact that OJP is not adequately monitoring the 

SWBPI program. Specifically, 

• Reimbursement requests were not always supported by the master 

case list resulting in excess reimbursements totaling $5.92 million.18

• 339 cases were submitted for reimbursement in the wrong quarter 

resulting in questioned costs of $793,933. 

• 1,637 cases were not eligible for reimbursement, resulting in 

questioned costs totaling $8.28 million and funds to be put to better 

use totaling $27,500, as shown in Table 4. 

 17 In addition, we identified funds to be put to better use totaling $27,500 related to 

unsupported and ineligible cases submitted for reimbursement that had not yet been paid. 

The questioned costs of $15.57 million and funds to be put to better use of $27,500 were 

previously addressed in our external audit reports on the seven SWBPI recipients included in 

our audit. 

18 Of the $5.92 million in excess reimbursements, $5.41 million was specific to 

San Francisco. Although, San Francisco provided two separate lists in support of the SWBPI 

cases submitted for reimbursement, according to San Francisco officials neither list was 

representative of the SWBPI cases submitted for reimbursement because the SWBPI 

submissions were not based on actual cases. As a result, we found that all of the SWBPI 

reimbursements submitted by San Francisco were not supported. 

 
- xvi - 

TABLE 4. 

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FROM PRIOR OIG SWBPI AUDITS 

NOT 

FEDERALLY 

INITIATED

RECORD 

RETENTION 

PROBLEMS

DUPLICATE 

DEFENDANT 

SUBMITTED 

DEFENDANT 

NOT 

DETAINED 

OVERNIGHT

TOTALS

TOTAL 

NUMBER OF 

CASES

985 208 142 302 1,637 

TOTAL 

QUESTIONED 

COSTS

$5,164,302 $826,003 $888,517 $1,399,134 $8,277,956 

TOTAL 

FUNDS TO 

BETTER USE

$ 17,500 $ 10,000 0 0 $ 27,500 

Source: Prior OIG SWBPI audits 

 This finding further demonstrates that OJP should require SWBPI 

recipients to submit a list of cases in support of reimbursement requests. 

Additionally, OJP should review reimbursement requests and the supporting 

case list to ensure that the number of cases submitted for reimbursement is 

accurate and that all cases submitted are eligible for reimbursement. 

Finally, at each of the seven sites included in our audit, we asked the 

responsible officials for feedback on OJP’s administration of the SWBPI 

program. Officials in all seven jurisdictions stated that OJP has not provided 

any training on the SWBPI guidelines. 

Based on the results of our external audits and the comments we 

received from the seven jurisdictions, OJP needs to provide training to the 

participating jurisdictions to help clarify the requirements of the SWBPI 

program. 

Recommendations 

The OIG made 13 recommendations to improve OJP’s management of 

the SWBPI program to ensure that: 

• reimbursement requests only include eligible cases; 

• reimbursement amounts are linked to actual costs; and 
- xvii - 

• reimbursements do not exceed actual costs and are adjusted to reflect 

other federal prosecution and detention funding received by SWBPI 

participants. 
- xviii - 

This page intentionally left blank. 
SOUTHWEST BORDER PROSECUTION INITIATIVE 

REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1

Background ...............................................................................1

Executive Office for United States Attorneys ................................... 2

Office of Justice Programs ............................................................ 3

SWBPI Guidelines .....................................................................4

Reimbursement Amounts ............................................................. 4

Case Eligibility .............................................................................5

Recent Guidance .......................................................................7

Additional Federal Prosecution and Detention Funding .............8

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Drug Prosecution Initiatives ...... 8

Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program................ 8

State Criminal Alien Assistance Program ........................................ 9

Prior Reports.............................................................................9

Audit Approach .......................................................................10

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................. 13

I. ADMINISTRATION AND OVERSIGHT OF REIMBURSEMENTS ....13

SWBPI Program Oversight ..................................................... 14

Supporting Documentation Not Required...................................... 14

Reimbursement Requests Not Reviewed....................................... 14

Monitoring Activities Not Conducted............................................. 15

External Audits Identified Unallowable and Unsupported 

Reimbursements................................................................. 16

SWBPI Reimbursement Not Linked to Actual Costs ................ 16

Reimbursements in Excess of Supported Costs ............................. 19

Analysis of SWBPI Reimbursements for the “Both” Category........... 22
Analysis of Reimbursements for Pre-Trial Detention....................... 23

Reimbursements Based On Days Rather Than Time and Effort ........ 25

Conclusion.............................................................................. 29

Recommendations.................................................................. 31

II. ADDITIONAL FEDERAL PROGRAMS WITH OVERLAPPING 

OBJECTIVES ............................................................................33

Additional Federal Prosecution and Detention Funding .......... 33

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Drug Prosecution Initiatives .... 34

Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program.............. 34

State Criminal Alien Assistance Program ...................................... 35

Analysis of Additional Federal Prosecution Funding ............... 36

Analysis of Additional Federal Detention Funding .................. 37

Recommendations.................................................................. 39

III. ALLOWABILITY OF REIMBURSEMENTS ....................................41

Accuracy of Reimbursements ................................................. 42

Case Eligibility........................................................................ 43

Feedback From SWBPI Recipients .......................................... 46

Recommendation ................................................................... 46

STATEMENT ON INTERNAL CONTROLS............................................ 47

STATEMENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS ...... 49

APPENDIX I - OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY ............... 51

APPENDIX II - SWBPI REIMBURSEMENT IN EXCESS OF 

SUPPORTED COSTS ................................................................ 53

APPENDIX III - SWBPI REIMBURSEMENTS BY RECIPIENT ............. 55

APPENDIX IV - OJP'S RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT ............... 57 

APPENDIX V - ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF ACTIONS 

NECESSARY TO CLOSE THE REPORT ....................................... 63
- 1 - 

INTRODUCTION 

The U.S. border with Mexico extends nearly 2,000 miles along the 

southern borders of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. The 

Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, is 

the federal agency with primary responsibility to detect and prevent illegal 

entry into the United States. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2006, U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection processed an average of 1.1 million passengers and 

pedestrians, and 70,900 truck, rail, and sea containers entering the United 

States each day. Additionally, on a typical day in FY 2006, U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection executed an average of 2,984 apprehensions for 

illegal entry into the United States, made 63 arrests at the ports of entry, 

and seized 5,557 pounds of narcotics. 

While U.S. Customs and Border Protection has the responsibility of 

guarding the national borders, the Department of Justice (DOJ) also plays a 

vital role in protecting the United States through prosecution, detainment, 

and incarceration of those individuals who violate federal criminal laws. As a 

result, drug cases resulting from the illegal importation of controlled 

substances at U.S. borders were typically prosecuted exclusively by U.S. 

Attorneys in federal courts. 

Background 

The Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative (SWBPI) provides funding 

to state, county, parish, tribal, and municipal governments for costs 

associated with the prosecution and pre-trial detention of these federally 

initiated criminal cases that are declined by the U.S. Attorneys offices and 

referred to state and local jurisdictions for prosecution. In late 1994, the 

U.S. Attorneys and state and local prosecutors began establishing 

partnerships through which the federal government referred to state and 

local governments criminal drug cases involving the illegal importation of 

controlled substances at the Southwest Border, known as federally 

declined-referred criminal cases.19 These partnerships allowed the 

U.S. Attorneys to focus on addressing major drug trafficking organizations 

and prosecuting deported criminal aliens who illegally returned to the United 

States. However, as state and local governments began to prosecute a 

growing number of federally declined-referred criminal cases, these entities 

experienced an increasing burden on their financial and personnel resources. 

 19 Declined-referred is a term used in the SWBPI guidelines to refer to a point in 

time during a federal investigation when a U.S. Attorney or federal law enforcement official 

decides not to pursue federal criminal charges against a defendant (declination) and 

requests that a state or local jurisdiction prosecute the defendant for violating state or local 

criminal statutes (referral). 
- 2 - 

In FYs 1998 and 1999, the counties along the Southwest Border, 

initiated by El Paso County, Texas, began notifying the U.S. Attorneys’ 

Offices (USAO) and the Executive Office for United States Attorneys 

(EOUSA) that they would no longer be able to prosecute federally 

declined-referred criminal cases unless they received federal funds to help 

support these efforts. As a result, in FY 2001 Congress appropriated 

$24 million dollars “. . . to reimburse county and municipal governments 

only for Federal costs associated with the handling and processing of illegal 

immigration and drug and alien smuggling cases.”20 The reimbursement 

program was initially administered by the Executive Office for United States 

Attorneys (EOUSA). 

Executive Office for United States Attorneys 

EOUSA was created to provide a liaison between DOJ and the 93 U.S. 

Attorneys located throughout the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, 

the Northern Marianas Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

EOUSA received $12 million in FY 2001 to reimburse county and 

municipal governments in California, Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico for 

handling and processing federally initiated drug cases along the Southwest 

Border. EOUSA provided each state with an equal share of funds to cover 

costs associated with court costs, administrative staff, courtroom 

technology, and the building of holding spaces. The original appropriation 

was supplemented, later in FY 2001, by an additional $10 million to Texas 

and $2 million to Arizona, and the legislation authorized reimbursements 

directly to the State of New Mexico. 

In FY 2002, management of the SWBPI program was transferred to 

the Office of Justice Programs (OJP). Specifically, the 2002 Departments of 

Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act (FY 2002 Appropriations Act) authorized “$50,000,000 for 

the Southwest Border Prosecutor Initiative . . . to reimburse state, county, 

parish, tribal, or municipal governments only for federal costs associated 

with the prosecution of criminal cases declined by local U.S. Attorneys 

Offices.”21

 20 Pub. L. No. 106-246 (2001). 

21 Pub. L. No. 107-77 (2001). 
- 3 - 

Office of Justice Programs 

According to its website, OJP provides federal leadership in developing 

the nation’s capacity to prevent and control crime, administer justice, and 

assist crime victims. OJP carries out this mission by forming partnerships 

with other federal, state, and local agencies, as well as national community 

based organizations. OJP programs seek to address crime, substance abuse, 

family violence, youth crime, crime victims, and law enforcement initiatives. 

 

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), a component of OJP, 

administers the SWBPI program. Its stated mission is to provide leadership 

and assistance to local criminal justice strategies to make U.S. communities 

safer. To accomplish its mission, BJA provides funding, training, technical 

assistance, and information to state and community criminal justice 

programs and emphasizes the coordination of federal, state, and local 

efforts. 

As of February 1, 2008, the SWBPI program provided reimbursements 

to 82 state, county, parish, tribal, and municipal governments for 41,567 

cases totaling over $161 million. Total SWBPI reimbursements received by 

the four Southwest Border states are shown in Table 1, and a detailed listing 

of SWBPI reimbursements for each SWBPI recipient is shown in Appendix 

III.22

TABLE 1. 

SWBPI REIMBURSEMENTS (DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)23

STATES FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 TOTALS

Arizona $ 3.00 $ 3.41 $ 2.14 $ 1.70 $ 2.70 $ 12.95 

California 18.45 15.63 12.78 13.00 16.32 76.19 

New Mexico 5.75 8.45 6.54 6.26 3.59 30.58 

Texas 11.77 11.07 6.82 7.04 4.71 41.41 

SWBPI Totals $38.97 $38.55 $28.28 $28.00 $27.33 $161.13 

Source: Office of Justice Programs 

 22 OJP has accepted applications for all the quarters of FY 2007, but as of January 

31, 2008 had not yet made any reimbursements for FY 2007 SWBPI submissions. 

Therefore, FY 2006 was the most recent data available. 

23 Throughout this report, differences in the total amounts are due to rounding. 
- 4 - 

SWBPI Guidelines 

Eligible SWBPI participants submit quarterly electronic applications for 

reimbursement through BJA’s SWBPI website. On the reimbursement 

applications, SWBPI applicants are required to list the total number of cases 

in each of three major categories based on the types of services provided: 

(1) prosecution only, (2) pre-trial detention only, and (3) both prosecution 

and pre-trial detention. The three major service categories are further 

broken down into four reimbursement categories based on the length of 

disposition: (1) 1 to 15 days, (2) 16 to 30 days, (3) 31 to 90 days, and 

(4) over 90 days.24

BJA does not require SWBPI applicants to provide documentation 

supporting the number of cases submitted for reimbursement through the 

electronic application. However, jurisdictions that receive SWBPI funds are 

required to retain documentation supporting the reimbursement requests for 

3 years from the date the application was approved.

Reimbursement Amounts 

Each eligible case may receive the following maximum reimbursement, 

based upon length of disposition, availability of funds, and the provision of 

both prosecution services and pre-trial detention services. 

TABLE 2. 

MAXIMUM SWBPI REIMBURSEMENTS 

LENGTH OF DISPOSITION

MAXIMUM 

REIMBURSEMENT

1 to 15 Days $ 2,500 

16 to 30 Days 5,000 

31 to 90 Days 7,500 

Over 90 Days 10,000 

Source: OJP 

To calculate the reimbursement amount for cases submitted for both 

prosecution and pre-trial detention services, the length of the prosecution 

takes precedence in determining a case’s disposition category. 

 24 Case disposition is the length of time between a suspect’s arrest and the 

resolution (e.g., dismissal, plea, conviction) of the criminal charges through a county or 

state judicial process. 
- 5 - 

For prosecution only cases, each eligible case may receive 50 percent 

of the maximum reimbursement. To be eligible for 50 percent of the 

maximum per case reimbursement for prosecution only, an eligible 

jurisdiction must provide one or more of the following for each case: 

(1) judicial services, (2) prosecution services, or (3) defense services. 

For pre-trial detention only cases, each eligible case may receive 

50 percent of the maximum reimbursement. To be eligible for 50 percent of 

the maximum reimbursement for pre-trial detention only, an eligible 

jurisdiction must have held the case defendant overnight for 1 or more days 

in a secure facility. Pre-trial detention services do not include incarceration 

time for sentenced offenders. 

According to SWBPI guidelines, SWBPI reimbursements received by 

state, county, parish, tribal, and municipal governments may be used for 

any lawful purpose that is in the best interest of the jurisdiction. 

The first five SWBPI application periods (from October 1, 2001, to 

March 31, 2004) were reimbursed at 100 percent of the maximum amount 

requested. OJP did not make any reimbursements for the 4th quarter of 

FY 2004 because all of the SWBPI funds appropriated for the fiscal year had 

already been disbursed. As a result, beginning in FY 2005 BJA officials 

divided the funds across each quarter with each jurisdiction receiving an 

equal percentage of the amount determined available for each quarter.25 

Case Eligibility

To be eligible for reimbursement under the SWBPI program, each case 

submitted must meet the following criteria. 

• The case must be federally initiated. A federally initiated case 

results from a criminal investigation or an arrest involving federal law 

enforcement authorities for a violation of federal criminal law. This 

may include investigations resulting from multi-jurisdictional task 

forces. 

 

 25 For the 3rd quarter of FY 2004, San Diego, California, and Brooks County, Texas, 

received 100-percent reimbursement while the remaining five sites included in our audit 

received 81 percent reimbursement. For the quarters ended December 31, 2004, March 31, 

2005, June 30, 2005, September 30, 2005, December 31, 2005, March 31, 2006, June 30, 

2006, and September 30, 2006, SWBPI recipients received pro-rata reimbursements of 

49.29 percent, 44.08 percent, 47.40 percent, 50.16 percent 53.18 percent, 47.61 percent, 

43.09 percent, and 44.05 percent, respectively. 
- 6 - 

• The case must be declined and referred. This occurs when a 

U.S. Attorney or federal law enforcement official decides not to pursue 

federal criminal charges against a defendant (declination) and requests 

that a state or local jurisdiction prosecute the defendant for violating 

state or local criminal statutes (referral). Referred cases are eligible 

for SWBPI reimbursement regardless of whether the case was formally 

declined and referred by a U.S. Attorney, or through a blanket 

declination-referral policy, an “accepted federal law enforcement 

practice,” or by federal prosecutorial discretion.26 

• The case must be prosecuted by a state or local jurisdiction. If 

the state or local jurisdiction reviews the case but decides not to 

prosecute, then the case is not eligible for reimbursement. 

• The case must be disposed of during an eligible reporting 

period. The eligible reporting period is the quarter in which the case 

was disposed and case disposition refers to the time between a 

suspect’s arrest and the resolution (e.g., dismissal, plea, conviction, 

etc.) of the criminal charges through a county or state judicial or 

prosecutorial process. Disposition does not include incarceration time 

for sentenced offenders or time spent by prosecutors on judicial 

appeals. 

Public Law 106-246 provided FY 2001 funding to state, county, parish, 

tribal, and municipal governments to reimburse them for costs associated 

with the prosecution and pre-trial detention of federally initiated illegal 

immigration and drug and alien smuggling cases that were declined by the 

U.S. Attorneys offices and instead referred to state and local jurisdictions. 

However, none of the subsequent appropriations limit the types of federally 

initiated cases that are allowable for reimbursement. As a result, any 

federally initiated case that is declined by the U.S. Attorneys offices and 

subsequently prosecuted by an eligible state or local jurisdiction is allowable 

for reimbursement. 

Additionally, the jurisdiction’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) or 

designee must certify for quarterly SWBPI applications that the “application 

does not contain payment claims for cases already fully reimbursed by 

 26 An accepted federal law enforcement practice is an understanding between the 

federal law enforcement agencies and the USAO. Declination-referrals through an accepted 

federal law enforcement practice result from the fact that through communication federal 

law enforcement agencies obtain an understanding of which cases the USAO will or will not 

prosecute. Through this understanding, those cases that federal law enforcement agencies 

know the USAO will not prosecute are referred directly to the state or local jurisdiction 

without obtaining a declination from the USAO. 
- 7 - 

federal funds, or when combined with other federal reimbursement, grant, 

or payment funds, does not make payment claims in excess of 100 percent 

of the cost of prosecuting and or detaining case defendants in the reporting 

period.” The SWBPI guidelines also state that, at “submission, the CEO or 

designee certifies that the total application amount, when combined with 

other federal funds . . . does not exceed 100 percent of the jurisdiction’s 

annualized costs for prosecution and or pre-trial detention services.” 

We found that there is a discrepancy between the certification on the 

SWBPI application and the certification requirement in the SWBPI guidelines. 

The application requires that federal funds cannot exceed 100 percent of the 

costs for the reporting period (i.e., the quarter) while the guidelines require 

that federal funds cannot exceed 100 percent of the annualized costs. 

Additionally, it is unclear whether or not prosecution and pre-trial detention 

costs should be considered separately or combined when determining if 

federal funds exceed costs. As a result, in conducting our audit we used the 

least restrictive interpretation of the guidelines and considered that federal 

funds cannot exceed the combined annualized prosecution and pre-trial 

detention costs for SWBPI cases. 

Recent Guidance 

 Our audit generally covered SWBPI reimbursements awarded from 

FYs 2002 through 2006. To assess the program, we used the SWBPI 

guidelines in effect during the period covered by our audit. However, it 

should be noted that in July 2007 OJP updated the SWBPI guidelines and 

made the following changes. 

• The new guidelines no longer state that recipients cannot receive 

reimbursements in excess of 100 percent of their actual annualized 

costs. Nonetheless, at the time SWBPI reimbursement applications 

are submitted the jurisdiction’s CEO or designee is still required to 

certify that “This application does not contain payment claims for cases 

already fully reimbursed by federal funds, or when combined with 

other federal reimbursement, grant, or payment funds, does not make 

payment claims in excess of 100 percent of the cost of prosecuting and 

or detaining case defendants in the reporting period.” 

• The July 2007 guidelines do not contain the statement that when a 

case is submitted under the “both” category, the prosecution timeline 

takes precedence in determining the case reimbursement category. 

However, the OJP application still allows for cases to be submitted 

under the “both” category rather than requiring that prosecution and 

pre-trial detention reimbursements be submitted separately. 
- 8 - 

• The July 2007 guidelines specify that new cases resulting from 

probation or parole violations and revocation hearings resulting from a 

previously reimbursed SWBPI case are not eligible for reimbursement. 

Further, extradition cases are also not eligible for reimbursement. 

Although none of these types of cases would have been eligible for 

reimbursement under the previous guidelines the revised guidelines 

ensure that jurisdictions are aware of the fact that these types of 

cases are ineligible. 

Additional Federal Prosecution and Detention Funding 

We identified three major federal programs that provide funding to 

state and local jurisdictions for prosecution and detention services that may 

partially duplicate the objectives of the SWBPI program. These programs 

are the Office of National Drug Control Policy’s (ONDCP) High Intensity Drug 

Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Drug Prosecution Initiatives, OJP’s Edward Byrne 

Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (Byrne Grant Program), and the 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (DHS ICE) State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP). 

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Drug Prosecution Initiatives 

HIDTA provides assistance to federal, state, and local law enforcement 

entities operating in areas most adversely affected by drug trafficking. In 

FY 2006, HIDTA funding totaled $224.7 million, of which $7 million was 

budgeted for locally designed strategies for prosecution. The HIDTA 

Prosecution Initiative is an optional initiative for local HIDTAs to provide 

state and local governments funding to cover salaries and some fringe 

benefits for prosecutors to work on HIDTA cases. The possibility for 

duplicate funding occurs when HIDTA drug cases prosecuted fully or in part 

by a HIDTA-funded prosecutor are submitted for SWBPI reimbursement. 

 

Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program 

The Byrne Grant Program is a partnership among federal, state, and 

local governments to create safer communities. BJA is authorized to award 

grants to states for use by states and units of local government to improve 

the functioning of the criminal justice system, with emphasis on violent 

crime and serious offenders. The Byrne Grant Program allows states, tribes, 

and local governments to support a broad range of activities to prevent and 

control crime based on their own local needs and conditions. The Byrne 

Grant Program affords agencies the flexibility to prioritize and place justice 

funds where they are needed most. The possibility for duplicate funding 
- 9 - 

occurs when jurisdictions receive both SWBPI prosecution reimbursements 

and Byrne prosecution funds for the same case. 

 

State Criminal Alien Assistance Program 

BJA administers SCAAP in conjunction with the DHS ICE. SCAAP 

provides federal payments to states and localities that incurred correctional 

officer salary costs for incarcerated undocumented criminal aliens. To apply 

for SCAAP funding, the jurisdictions must submit inmate data files including 

identifiable information on the inmate, which is used to determine SCAAP 

eligibility for each inmate. The total inmate days and total correctional 

officer salary costs are utilized in determining the per diem cost used to 

calculate inmate reimbursements. SWBPI recipients are encouraged to 

apply for SCAAP funding with the knowledge that the total application 

amount, when combined with other federal funds provided to the jurisdiction 

for that reporting period, does not exceed 100 percent of the jurisdiction’s 

annualized costs for pre-trial detention services. The possibility for duplicate 

funding occurs when jurisdictions receive both SWBPI pre-trial detention 

reimbursements and SCAAP funding for the same incarcerated 

undocumented criminal alien. 

Prior Reports 

Prior to the initiation of this audit, the OIG conducted three audits of 

individual SWBPI recipients to determine if SWBPI reimbursement requests 

submitted by the jurisdictions were allowable, supported, and in accordance 

with applicable laws, regulations, guidelines, and terms and conditions of the 

SWBPI program. The three audits examined the: (1) New Mexico 

Department of Public Safety (New Mexico DPS); (2) Yuma County Attorney’s 

Office, Arizona (Yuma County); and (3) Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, 

Arizona (Maricopa County).27 These SWBPI audits revealed dollar-related 

findings totaling over $1.6 million. Specifically, the prior reviews identified 

the following. 

• The New Mexico DPS received reimbursements totaling $1,098,036 for 

ineligible cases. Additionally, the New Mexico DPS did not adequately 

monitor the state judicial districts’ requests for reimbursements to 

ensure the cases were allowable, supported, and in compliance with 

the SWBPI guidelines, and did not require the state judicial districts to 

sign assurances as to the accuracy of requests for reimbursement. 

 27 Our audit of the New Mexico DPS included the 2nd, 3rd, and 11th Judicial 

Districts. 
- 10 - 

• Yuma County received reimbursements totaling $84,191 for ineligible 

cases and $200,147 for unsupported cases. It also requested 

reimbursements totaling $17,500 for ineligible cases that had not yet 

been paid. Further, Yuma County did not maintain a list of cases 

supporting the reimbursements requested. 

• Maricopa County received reimbursements totaling $16,409 for 

ineligible cases and $176,948 for unsupported cases. It also 

requested reimbursements totaling $10,000 for unsupported cases 

that had not yet been paid. Additionally, Maricopa County failed to 

maintain a number of supporting case files for the required 3-year 

record retention period. 

Additionally, for the past 8 years grant management has been 

identified by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) as one of DOJ’s top 

10 management and performance challenges. Specifically, the OIG has 

reported that grant management continues to be a challenge for the 

following reasons: 

• OIG reviews continue to find that many grantees do not submit 

required financial and progress reports or do not submit them in a 

timely fashion; 

• Numerous deficiencies continue to be found in DOJ’s monitoring of 

grantee activities; 

• OIG audits found that grant funds were not regularly awarded in a 

timely manner and that grantees were slow to spend available monies; 

and 

• OIG audits of grants have resulted in significant dollar-related findings. 

Although SWBPI is a reimbursement program rather than a grant 

program, in our judgment the same concerns related to OJP’s management 

and oversight of the program exist. 

Audit Approach 

 Our audit of the SWBPI program sought to: 

• Evaluate OJP’s administration and management of SWBPI 

reimbursements; 
- 11 - 

• Identify additional federal programs with overlapping objectives; and 

• Determine if SWBPI reimbursement requests submitted by eligible 

jurisdictions are allowable, supported, and in accordance with 

applicable laws, regulations, guidelines, and terms and conditions of 

the SWBPI program. 

The audit generally covered, but is not limited to, SWBPI 

reimbursements awarded from FYs 2002 through 2006. Audit work was 

conducted at OJP; ONDCP; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 

Explosives (ATF); the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA); the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation (FBI); EOUSA; and the following selected SWBPI 

recipients: (1) New Mexico DPS; (2) Yuma County; (3) Maricopa County; 

(4) El Paso County Auditor’s Office, Texas (El Paso County); (5) San Diego 

District Attorney’s Office, California (San Diego); (6) Brooks County, Texas 

(Brooks County); and (7) City and County of San Francisco, California (San 

Francisco). Additional information related to the audit objectives, scope, and 

methodology is contained in Appendix I. 
- 12 - 

This page intentionally left blank. 
- 13 - 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

I. ADMINISTRATION AND OVERSIGHT OF REIMBURSEMENTS 

Our audit results revealed that OJP is not adequately overseeing 

the SWBPI program. Applicants are not required to provide any 

documentation supporting reimbursement requests. In addition, 

OJP was not reviewing SWBPI reimbursement applications for 

accuracy and was not conducting any monitoring activities to 

determine the eligibility of cases submitted for reimbursement. 

Additionally, we found that approved reimbursements were not 

linked to actual costs incurred by the jurisdictions to prosecute 

federally declined-referred criminal cases. Moreover, none of the 

seven jurisdictions included in our audit maintained any 

documentation to support costs associated with SWBPI cases 

submitted for reimbursement. Our analyses determined that 

$49.78 million in SWBPI reimbursements were in excess of 

supported annualized costs. Because SWBPI is intended to 

reimburse states and localities for costs they actually incur, in 

our judgment OJP needs to do more to ensure that claimed 

amounts are based on actual costs. 

To be eligible for reimbursement under the SWBPI program, each case 

submitted must meet the following criteria. 

• The case must be initiated by a federal law enforcement agency. 

• The case must be declined for federal prosecution and referred to the 

local jurisdiction for prosecution. 

• The case must be prosecuted by a state or local jurisdiction. 

• The case must be disposed of during an eligible reporting period. 

However, we found that OJP does not adequately oversee SWBPI 

reimbursements. Specifically, (1) no supporting documentation is required, 

(2) the applications are not reviewed for eligibility, and (3) no monitoring of 

SWBPI recipients occurs. 
- 14 - 

SWBPI Program Oversight 

 

Supporting Documentation Not Required 

Pursuant to the SWBPI guidelines, SWBPI applicants are required to 

list the total number of cases in each of the three major categories based on 

the types of services provided: (1) prosecution only, (2) pre-trial detention 

only, and (3) both prosecution and pre-trial detention. However, OJP does 

not require SWBPI applicants to provide documentation supporting the 

number of cases submitted for reimbursement through the electronic 

application. In our judgment, OJP cannot effectively oversee the SWBPI 

program without requiring the applicants to provide some documentation in 

support of reimbursement requests. Further, most of the unallowable and 

unsupported reimbursements totaling $15.57 million, or 28 percent of the 

total reimbursements audited, identified in our seven external audits 

discussed in Finding III, could have been avoided if OJP required applicants 

to submit supporting documents.28 

At a minimum, OJP should require SWBPI recipients to submit a list of 

cases in support of the reimbursement requests. This list should include 

sufficient information to verify the eligibility of the cases submitted for 

reimbursement, including: (1) case number, (2) defendant name, (3) arrest 

date, (4) disposition date, (5) initiating federal law enforcement agency, and 

(6) referring federal agency. Additionally, for pre-trial detention 

reimbursements the case list should include the defendants booking and 

release dates. This is consistent with the requirements of other 

reimbursement programs administered by OJP, such as SCAAP that requires 

a list of inmate names, identifying information, and the length of detention. 

Reimbursement Requests Not Reviewed 

Without requiring, at a minimum, a list of cases submitted for 

reimbursement and information related to case eligibility, OJP is unable to 

review reimbursement applications for accuracy and to determine the 

eligibility of cases submitted for reimbursement. 

In our judgment, in addition to requiring a list of cases in support of 

reimbursement requests, OJP should also review reimbursement requests 

 28 It should be noted that the dollar-related findings identified in our reviews of the 

seven SWBPI recipients were addressed in separate external audit reports. Thus, we are 

not offering any recommendations in this report specific to the $15.57 million in unallowable 

and unsupported reimbursements and $27,500 in funds to be put to better use. 
- 15 - 

and the supporting case list to determine if the number of cases submitted 

for reimbursement is accurate and that all cases submitted are eligible for 

reimbursement. Again, this is consistent with the requirements of other 

reimbursement programs administered by OJP, such as SCAAP for which the 

reimbursement request is verified by DHS ICE to determine if the inmates 

are eligible for reimbursement in accordance with the SCAAP criteria. 

Monitoring Activities Not Conducted 

 

Although SWBPI recipients are required to maintain documentation 

supporting the reimbursement requests for 3 years from the date the 

application was approved, we found that OJP did not conduct any monitoring 

activities of SWBPI reimbursement recipients. For its traditional grant 

programs, OJP is required to devote resources to on-site monitoring reviews 

to verify that sufficient documentation is available to support grant-related 

activities and that progress is being made towards performance 

requirements. OJP is also required to conduct remote reviews of grantee 

information to verify the accuracy and quality of information submitted by 

grantees regarding financial and program activities. Although SWBPI is not 

a grant program, in our judgment the same concerns that the OIG has 

previously reported regarding OJP’s management and oversight of grant 

programs applies to the SWBPI program. 

In our judgment, OJP should conduct monitoring activities of SWBPI 

recipients to: (1) ensure compliance with the programmatic, administrative, 

and fiscal requirements of relevant statutes, regulations, policies, and 

guidelines; (2) provide guidance on OJP policies and procedures, program 

requirements, general federal regulations, and basic programmatic, 

administrative, and reporting requirements; and (3) identify and resolve 

problems that may impede the effective administration of the program. 

OJP’s policy to not require supporting documentation for 

reimbursement applications and its failure to perform monitoring activities of 

SWBPI participants place SWBPI funding at a high risk of misuse. We 

believe such conditions more easily allow for unsupported and unallowable 

requests for reimbursements. 
- 16 - 

External Audits Identified Unallowable and Unsupported Reimbursements 

We conducted a series of seven audits covering SWBPI 

reimbursements totaling $55.11 million awarded from FYs 2002 through 

2006. The seven SWBPI recipients audited were: (1) New Mexico DPS; 

(2) Yuma County; (3) Maricopa County; (4) El Paso County; (5) San Diego 

(6) Brooks County; and (7) San Francisco. These audits revealed OJP does 

not adequately oversee the SWBPI program. We found unallowable and 

unsupported reimbursements totaling $15.57 million, which equates to 

28 percent of the total reimbursements audited. Additionally, we identified 

$27,500 in funds to be put to better use.29 Specifically, we identified: 

• unsupported reimbursements totaling $5.41 million for which the 

number of cases submitted on the electronic applications exceeded the 

number of cases on the detailed list provided by the recipient in our 

audit; 

• 2,133 cases that were not eligible for reimbursement under the SWBPI 

guidelines received reimbursements, resulting in $10.18 million in 

questioned costs and funds to be put to better use; 

• two jurisdictions – Yuma County and San Francisco – did not maintain 

a list of cases submitted for reimbursement, and San Francisco’s 

SWBPI submissions were based on estimates, not specific SWBPI 

eligible cases actually prosecuted.30

The results of our audits are discussed in detail in Finding III. 

However, the significant dollar-related findings we identified further support 

our conclusion that OJP does not adequately oversee the SWBPI program. 

 

SWBPI Reimbursement Not Linked to Actual Costs 

We found that SWBPI reimbursement categories and corresponding 

reimbursement amounts were not based on actual costs. On each quarterly 

application the jurisdiction’s CEO or designee must certify that the total 

application amount, when combined with other federal funding, does not 

 29 The dollar-related findings identified in our reviews of the seven SWBPI recipients 

were addressed in separate external audit reports. Thus, we are not offering any 

recommendations in this report specific to the $15.57 million in unallowable and 

unsupported reimbursements and $27,500 in funds to be put to better use. 

30 San Francisco attempted to recreate a master case list, but upon reviewing a 

sample of cases we determined that none of the cases on the list were federally initiated. 

Yuma County was able to recreate a list of cases submitted for reimbursement. 
- 17 - 

exceed 100 percent of the jurisdiction’s annualized costs for SWBPI 

prosecution and pre-trial detention services. Further, the CEO or designee 

must certify that the SWBPI claim has been adjusted to account for 

additional prosecution and pre-trial detention funding received through other 

federal programs. 

We interviewed OJP officials to determine the basis for the 

reimbursement categories and corresponding reimbursement amounts. 

However, OJP could not provide documentation to demonstrate what actions 

were taken in creating the reimbursement categories and corresponding 

reimbursement amounts. Further, OJP was not able to provide 

documentation to support the basis for its uniform payment per case 

schedule. We also found that the OJP personnel responsible for 

administering the SWBPI program were not aware of the basis used in 

determining the reimbursement categories and amounts. 

We were able to determine that during FYs 2000 and 2001 when the 

SWBPI program was administered by EOUSA, each participant was required 

to analyze actual costs in various categories and develop a unique, 

jurisdiction-specific cost per case as the basis for the reimbursement 

agreement. We consider this a best practice to ensure that reimbursements 

most accurately reflect actual costs. 

However, according to correspondence provided to us by OJP from a 

former SWBPI official, when the administration of the SWBPI program was 

transferred to OJP, OJP planned to formulate the uniform cost-per-case 

reimbursement schedule. The reimbursement schedule was to be based 

upon information and feedback from U.S. Attorneys, and state and local 

criminal justice professionals. 

Based on OJP’s inability to provide any support or justification for its 

uniform payment per case schedule, we were concerned that the 

reimbursement categories and corresponding amounts may not accurately 

reflect the actual costs to prosecute and detain SWBPI defendants. This is 

particularly important because, as stated previously, the FY 2002 

Appropriations Act and all subsequent appropriations identify SWBPI as a 

reimbursement program. 

We conducted limited testing at the seven jurisdictions included in our 

audit to determine the correlation between reimbursement categories and 

actual costs for prosecution and detention. We found that reimbursements 

are not based on actual costs incurred by the jurisdictions to prosecute 

federally declined-referred criminal cases. Specifically, we found that: 
- 18 - 

• None of the seven jurisdictions included in our audit maintained any 

documentation to support prosecution and pre-trial detention costs for 

SWBPI cases. However, the jurisdictions were able to provide us with 

sufficient information to calculate pre-trial detention costs; 

• Reimbursements for cases submitted under the “both” prosecution and 

pre-trial detention category are based on the number of days to 

prosecute the case, regardless of the length of time the defendant was 

detained; 

• Prosecution services are reimbursed at the same amounts as pre-trial 

detention services, even though there is no evidence that these 

amounts accurately reflect the actual average prosecution and 

detention costs for each Southwest Border jurisdiction; and 

• Reimbursements are based on the number of days the case was open 

rather than the time and effort spent on prosecuting the case. 

As a result of not linking reimbursement rates to actual costs, 

jurisdictions may receive reimbursements in excess of their actual costs. In 

our judgment, this is inconsistent with the stated statutory goal of 

reimbursing jurisdictions for money actually expended. Moreover, as of the 

4th quarter of FY 2006, SWBPI applicants only received 44 percent of the 

maximum reimbursement amount because reimbursement requests 

exceeded available funding, as shown in Table 3. 

TABLE 3.

PRO-RATA SWBPI REIMBURSEMENTS 

QUARTER ENDED PRO-RATA REIMBURSEMENTS

December 31, 2004 49.29 % 

March 31, 2005 44.08 % 

June 30, 2005 47.40 % 

September 30, 2005 50.16 % 

December 31, 2005 53.18 % 

March 31, 2006 47.61 % 

June 30, 2006 43.09 % 

September 30, 2006 44.05 % 

Source: OJP 
- 19 - 

In our opinion, if OJP ensured that only eligible cases were reimbursed 

and reimbursements were linked to the actual costs to prosecute and detain 

SWBPI defendants, additional funds would be available to more fully 

reimburse actual costs for eligible cases. These findings are discussed in 

detail in the following sections. 

Reimbursements in Excess of Supported Costs 

We conducted testing to calculate the actual annualized prosecution 

and pre-trial detention costs as compared to total SWBPI reimbursements to 

determine whether or not the jurisdictions received SWBPI reimbursements 

in excess of their actual costs. Based on our analysis we found that SWBPI 

recipients received reimbursements totaling $49.78 million in excess of 

supported annualized costs, as shown in Table 4.31 

 31 See Appendix II for the detailed analysis for each site. 
- 20 - 

TABLE 4.

SWBPI REIMBURSEMENTS IN EXCESS OF SUPPORTED COSTS 

(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)

32

SITE FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 TOTAL

NEW MEXICO 

DPS $ 3.62 $ 4.87 $4.03 $4.41 $2.47 $19.41

BROOKS 

COUNTY

1.69 1.87 .61 2.41 .92 7.49

SAN DIEGO 3.41 2.19 2.02 .38 ( .20) 7.80

EL PASO 

COUNTY

1.84 2.07 .68 .87 .83 6.29

SAN 

FRANCISCO33 - - .04 1.71 3.67 5.41

YUMA COUNTY .50 .65 .52 .26 .41 2.34

MARICOPA 

COUNTY

.42 .40 .37 ( .05) ( .11) 1.02

TOTAL $11.48 $12.03 $8.27 $9.99 $8.00 $49.78

Scope: Data from New Mexico DPS, Brooks County, San Diego, El Paso County, 

San Francisco, Yuma County, and Maricopa County; and OIG analysis 

The SWBPI reimbursements of $49.78 million in excess of supported 

costs was predominately due to the fact that none of the jurisdictions 

included in our audit tracked or maintained data supporting the costs 

associated with prosecuting SWBPI cases. However, each jurisdiction was 

able to provide documentation to support their actual cost per day for 

pre-trial detention services. As a result, we were able to calculate the actual 

annualized pre-trial detention costs for SWBPI cases. As noted above, 

SWBPI is a reimbursement program and each SWBPI applicant certifies that 

total federal reimbursements do not exceed 100 percent of its actual 

prosecution and pre-trial detention costs for SWBPI cases. 

In our opinion, OJP should obtain sufficient cost data from each SWBPI 

recipient to ensure that reimbursements are linked to actual costs associated 

 32 The analysis conducted does not include cases beyond the retention period for 

which supporting documentation was no longer available. Appendix II contains detailed 

analyses for each of the seven auditees. 

33 San Francisco did not participate in the SWBPI program until FY 2004. Further, 

San Francisco was unable to provide a list of cases submitted for reimbursement because its 

SWBPI submissions were not based on specific cases. As a result, we questioned the entire 

reimbursement received by San Francisco. 
- 21 - 

with SWBPI cases. We do not believe it is necessary for SWBPI recipients to 

create elaborate cost accounting systems to determine the actual costs for 

each case. However, each recipient should, at a minimum, track and 

maintain sufficient data on the costs associated with SWBPI cases to support 

the certification that total federal funds received do not exceed 100 percent 

of the annualized costs for its SWBPI cases. This is consistent with the 

requirements of other reimbursement programs administered by OJP such as 

SCAAP, which requires that recipients provide actual cost information to 

determine the per day reimbursement rate. 

Specifically, SCAAP participants are required to submit actual cost data 

in order to participate in the reimbursement program. Each SCAAP 

participant receives reimbursements based on a per diem cost rate specific 

to each jurisdiction. The total inmate days and total correctional officer 

salary costs are utilized in determining the per diem cost used to calculate 

inmate reimbursements for SCAAP. The total inmate days are the 

cumulative number of consecutive detention days attributable to inmates 

housed in the jurisdiction’s facilities during the reporting period. It includes 

all inmates regardless of their status, citizenship, disposition, or length of 

stay. Correctional officers include employees, officers, and contractual staff 

whose primary responsibility is the control, custody, or supervision of 

persons detained and incarcerated and their salary costs reflect the total 

salaries and wages paid to full and part-time correctional officers. The per 

diem cost is derived by dividing the jurisdiction’s total inmate days into the 

total correctional officer salary costs. A hypothetical example is shown in 

Table 5. 

 

TABLE 5. 

SAMPLE CALCULATION OF SCAAP RATES 

DAILY DETENTION 

RATE

Total Salary Costs $50,000,000 

Divided By 

Total Inmate Days 2,000,000 

Equals Per Diem $25.00 

Total Inmate Days Eligible 

for Reimbursement 200,000 

TOTAL REIMBURSEMENT $ 5,000,000 

Source: OJP and OIG analysis 
- 22 - 

Analysis of SWBPI Reimbursements for the “Both” Category 

Pursuant to SWBPI guidelines, reimbursements for cases submitted 

under the “both” prosecution and pre-trial detention category are based on 

the number of days to prosecute the case, regardless of the length of time 

the defendant was detained. 

Based on our audits of SWBPI recipients, we determined that in many

cases involving both prosecution and pre-trial detention services the 

defendant was only detained for a few days. If the pre-trial detention 

reimbursements for these cases were calculated separately, SWBPI 

jurisdictions would only have received up to $1,250 for these cases. 

However, based on the guidelines in place during the period covered by our 

audit, if the length of disposition for prosecution was in the over 90 day 

category, the recipient received up to $10,000 for the case ($5,000 for 

prosecution and $5,000 for pre-trial detention) even though the pre-trial 

detention services were for less than 15 days. 

For five of the seven sites included in our audit, we analyzed all “both” 

cases submitted in the over-90 day category to determine the number of 

cases for which the pre-trial detention reimbursement would have been 

submitted in a different reimbursement category based on the length of 

detention.34 We found that on average for 69 percent of the over 90 day 

“both” cases, pre-trial detention would have been reimbursed in a lesser 

category, as shown in Table 6. 

 34 The New Mexico DPS was not included in our analysis because it only submits 

reimbursement requests for prosecution services. As a result, our audit only included 

SWBPI reimbursements for prosecution services. SWBPI pre-trial detention reimbursement 

requests for the State of New Mexico are submitted separately by the counties. 

Additionally, San Francisco was not included in our analysis because it was unable to 

provide a list of cases submitted for reimbursement since its SWBPI submissions were not 

based on specific cases. 
- 23 - 

TABLE 6. 

ANALYSIS OF PRE-TRIAL DETENTION FOR 91+ DAY BOTH CASES 

NO. OF 91+

DAY BOTH 

CASES 

PERCENT OF 

CASES ACTUAL 

DETENTION IN 

1-15 DAY 

CATEGORY 

PERCENT OF 

CASES ACTUAL 

DETENTION IN 

16-30 DAY 

CATEGORY

PERCENT OF 

CASES ACTUAL 

DETENTION IN 

31-90 DAY 

CATEGORY

TOTAL 

PERCENT OF 

CASES ACTUAL 

DETENTION 

LESS THAN 

91+ DAYS

EL PASO 

CO. 837 71.68 % 7.65 % 4.42 % 83.75 % 

BROOKS CO. 664 65.36 % 1.51 % 0.15 % 67.02 % 

SAN DIEGO 

CO. 511 43.84 % 6.64 % 9.98 % 60.46 % 

YUMA CO. 157 35.03 % 14.01 % 5.10 % 54.14 % 

MARICOPA 

CO. 252 26.59 % 5.95 % 17.86 % 50.40 % 

WEIGHTED 

AVERAGE

N/A 57.00 % 5.99 % 5.87 % 68.85 % 

Source: OJP, El Paso County, Brooks County, San Diego, Yuma County, Maricopa County, 

and OIG analysis 

In summary, based on the number of days the defendant was detained 

in the five sites included in our analysis, the pre-trial detention 

reimbursements for 50 to 84-percent of the “both” cases submitted in the 

over 90 day reimbursement category, would have been submitted in a lower 

reimbursement category if the reimbursements were calculated separately. 

Therefore, using the “both” category does not accurately reflect pre-trial 

detention costs because reimbursements are based on the number of days 

to prosecute the case, regardless of the length of time the defendant was 

detained. As a result, these cases received excess reimbursements for 

pre-trial detention. In our judgment, OJP should eliminate the “both” 

category and reimburse prosecution and pre-trial detention costs separately. 

In addition to the fact that the prosecution timeline takes precedence 

in determining the reimbursement category for the “both” cases, there is no 

evidence that prosecution and pre-trial detention costs are similar and 

should be reimbursed at the same rate. 

Analysis of Reimbursements for Pre-Trial Detention 

 

We found that pre-trial detention reimbursements do not accurately 

reflect the average daily detention costs for each Southwest Border 

jurisdiction. We obtained the daily pre-trial detention costs for six 
- 24 - 

jurisdictions included in our audit. From this data we determined that there 

was a wide range in the daily costs to detain defendants among the 

jurisdictions included in our audit, as shown in Table 7.35

TABLE 7. 

FY 2006 SWBPI DAILY DETENTION RATES 

JURISDICTION

DAILY DETENTION 

RATE

San Diego $110.69 

San Francisco 88.25 

Yuma County 70.24 

El Paso County 57.98 

Maricopa County 56.23 

Brooks County 46.00 

Average $ 71.57 

Scope: Brooks County, San Diego, El Paso County, 

San Francisco, Yuma County, and Maricopa County 

 

The FY 2006 daily detention rates among the six jurisdictions ranged 

from $110.69 per day in San Diego to $46.00 per day in Brooks County, a 

difference of $64.69. As a result, it is clear that using the same detention 

reimbursement rates for all SWBPI jurisdictions does not accurately reflect 

actual costs to detain the defendants. 

In addition to the fact that there is a wide range in the daily detention 

rates among the jurisdictions, we found that in general the average 

detention rate based on the SWBPI reimbursement categories exceeded the 

highest detention rate of the six jurisdictions included in our audit. For 

example, the average daily detention reimbursement rate among the six 

jurisdictions included in our audit was $71.57. However, the average daily 

SWBPI detention reimbursements for the 1 to 15, 16 to 30, and 31 to 90 day 

reimbursement categories were $206.98, $112.79, and $67.97 respectively. 

Only in cases where the defendant was detained for more than 52 days did 

the SWBPI daily detention rate of $72.12 more closely resemble the actual 

average daily cost of $71.57 to detain the defendants. As noted previously, 

 35 We did not analyze pre-trial detention costs for the New Mexico DPS because it 

only submits reimbursement requests for prosecution services. As a result, our audit only 

included SWBPI reimbursements for prosecution services. SWBPI pre-trial detention 

reimbursement requests are submitted through the State of New Mexico’s counties. 
- 25 - 

the majority of pre-trial detention services provided for SWBPI defendants 

fell into the 1 to 15 day reimbursement category. Therefore, SWBPI 

pre-trial detention amounts generally exceeded the actual pre-trial detention 

costs incurred by the state and local jurisdictions. 

In our judgment, the pre-trial detention reimbursement amounts 

should be adjusted by OJP to more accurately reflect actual costs. This 

would provide additional funding for prosecution services and provide a more 

equitable distribution of SWBPI funding. Additionally, we believe pre-trial 

detention reimbursements should be based on the actual number of days the 

defendant was detained rather than on the broad range of days included in 

the reimbursement categories. This is consistent with the requirements of 

other reimbursement programs administered by OJP, such as its SCAAP for 

which the reimbursement amounts are based on actual costs and the specific 

number of days the inmate was incarcerated. 

Reimbursements Based On Days Rather Than Time and Effort 

Finally, we found that the reimbursements are based on the number of 

days the case was open rather than the time and effort spent on prosecuting 

the case and the actual number of days that the defendant was detained. 

SWBPI reimbursements are currently based on the length of disposition: 

(1) 1 to 15 days, (2) 16 to 30 days, (3) 31 to 90 days, and (4) over 

90 days. 

According to the SWBPI guidelines, case disposition refers to the time 

between a suspect’s arrest and the resolution (e.g., dismissal, plea, 

conviction) of the criminal charges through a county or state judicial or 

prosecutorial process. However, in our judgment using the number of days 

the SWBPI case is open does not accurately reflect the actual cost to 

prosecute the case. We based this conclusion on the fact that each SWBPI 

case varies in complexity. For example, in a simple case related to the 

possession of a controlled substance by a single defendant, the prosecutor’s 

time and effort may be very little as compared to a complex case with 

multiple defendants. However, the trial date for both cases may be set for 

more than 90 days after the defendant was arrested. Therefore, both cases 

would be reimbursed at the over 90-day rate even though the actual costs 

associated with prosecuting the cases were significantly less. Additionally, 

prosecution services are reimbursed at the same rate for each jurisdiction 

even though there is no evidence that these amounts accurately reflect the 

jurisdiction’s prosecution costs. In our judgment, the prosecution 

reimbursement amounts should be adjusted by OJP to more accurately 

reflect the actual costs involved in prosecuting the case. 
- 26 - 

While the number of days the defendant is detained is an accurate 

measure of the pre-trial detention costs for SWBPI cases, in our judgment 

the current SWBPI reimbursement categories do not accurately reflect the 

pre-trial detention costs. We based this conclusion on the fact that the 

reimbursements are calculated on a broad range of days rather than the 

actual number of days the defendant was detained. In many instances using 

this broad range of days rather than the actual number of days can result in 

reimbursements for pre-trial detention services far in excess of actual costs. 

Based on the SWBPI reimbursement amounts, depending on the number of 

days the defendant was actually detained, for pre-trial detention only cases 

that fall into the 1 to 15 day reimbursement category, the daily SWBPI 

pre-trial detention reimbursements range from $625 per day to $83 per day; 

the daily pre-trial detention reimbursements for the 16 to 30 day category 

range from $156.25 per day to $83 per day; and the daily pre-trial detention 

reimbursements for the 31 to 90 day reimbursement category range from 

$121 per day to $42. Tables 8 and 9 detail the average SWBPI pre-trial 

detention reimbursements based on the actual number of days the 

defendant was detained. 
- 27 - 

TABLE 8. 

CALCULATION OF EFFECTIVE DAILY DETENTION RATES 

(1 TO 15 DAY AND 16 TO 30 DAY CATEGORIES) 

NUMBER OF DAYS DAILY RATE NUMBER OF DAYS DAILY RATE

1 N/A36 16 $156.25

2 $625.00 17 147.06

3 416.67 18 138.89

4 312.50 19 131.58

5 250.00 20 125.00

6 208.33 21 119.05

7 178.57 22 113.64

8 156.25 23 108.70

9 138.89 24 104.17

10 125.00 25 100.00

11 113.64 26 96.15

12 104.17 27 92.59

13 96.15 28 89.29

14 89.29 29 86.21

15 83.33 30 83.33

Average $206.98 Average $112.79 

Source: OIG analysis of SWBPI reimbursements 

 36 According to SWBPI guidelines, a case is only eligible for pre-trial detention 

reimbursement if the defendant is held overnight; as a result, by definition all defendants 

for eligible cases would be detained for at least 2 days. 
- 28 - 

TABLE 9. 

CALCULATION OF EFFECTIVE DAILY DETENTION RATES 

(31 TO 90 DAY CATEGORY) 

NUMBER 

OF DAYS

DAILY 

RATE

NUMBER 

OF DAYS

DAILY 

RATE

NUMBER 

OF DAYS

DAILY 

RATE

NUMBER 

OF DAYS

DAILY 

RATE

31 $120.97 46 $81.52 61 $61.48 76 $49.34

32 117.19 47 79.79 62 60.48 77 48.70

33 113.64 48 78.13 63 59.52 78 48.08

34 110.29 49 76.53 64 58.59 79 47.47

35 107.14 50 75.00 65 57.69 80 46.88

36 104.17 51 73.53 66 56.82 81 46.30

37 101.35 52 72.12 67 55.97 82 45.73

38 98.68 53 70.75 68 55.15 83 45.18

39 96.15 54 69.44 69 54.35 84 44.64

40 93.75 55 68.18 70 53.57 85 44.12

41 91.46 56 66.96 71 52.82 86 43.60

42 89.29 57 65.79 72 52.08 87 43.10

43 87.21 58 64.66 73 51.37 88 42.61

44 85.23 59 63.56 74 50.68 89 42.13

45 83.33 60 62.50 75 50.00 90 41.67

Average $67.97

Source: OIG analysis of SWBPI reimbursements 

As stated previously, the FY 2006 daily detention rates among the six 

jurisdictions included in our audit ranged from $110.69 per day in San Diego 

to $46.00 per day in Brooks County. Additionally, the average daily 

detention rate for the six jurisdictions was $71.57 per day. Therefore, using 

the broad range of days rather than the actual number of days for SWBPI 

pre-trial detention reimbursements generally results in reimbursement far in 

excess of actual costs. This is due to the majority of pre-trial detention 

services provided for SWBPI defendants who fall into the 1 to 15 day 

reimbursement category. This issue is further compounded by the fact that 

reimbursements for SWBPI cases submitted in the “both” category are based 

on the number of days it took to prosecute the case. A jurisdiction could 

receive up to $5,000 for pre-trial detention services ($2,500 per day) even 
- 29 - 

when a defendant was only held overnight and released the next day. 

Therefore, basing reimbursements on a broad range of days rather than the 

actual number of days the defendant was detained does not accurately 

reflect pre-trial detention costs. 

Conclusion 

We found the following conditions related to OJP’s administration and 

oversight of its SWBPI program: 

• Applicants are not required to provide any documentation supporting 

reimbursement requests. 

• OJP does not review the applications for accuracy or to determine the 

eligibility of cases submitted for reimbursement. 

• OJP does not conduct any monitoring activities of SWBPI recipients. 

• Based on our review of seven SWBPI recipients, we found unallowable 

and unsupported reimbursements totaling $15.57 million, which 

equates to 28 percent of the total reimbursements audited and funds 

to be put to better use of $27,500. The results of our audits are 

discussed in detail in Finding III. However, the significant 

dollar-related findings we identified further support our conclusion that 

OJP does not adequately oversee the SWBPI program. 

• Reimbursements are not based on actual costs incurred by the 

jurisdictions to prosecute federally declined-referred criminal cases. 

• The SWBPI guidelines require the recipients to certify that total federal 

reimbursements do not exceed 100 percent of actual prosecution and 

pre-trial detention costs for SWBPI cases. However, none of the seven 

jurisdictions included in our audit maintained any documentation to 

support the costs associated with SWBPI cases submitted for 

reimbursement, although the jurisdictions were able to provide us with 

data related to the pre-trial detention costs. As a result, based on our 

analysis of the seven jurisdictions included in our audit, we found that 

SWBPI recipients received reimbursements totaling $49.78 million in 

excess of the supported annualized costs. 

• Reimbursements for cases submitted under the “both” prosecution and 

pre-trial detention category are based on the number of days to 

prosecute the case, regardless of the length of time the defendant was 

detained. We found that on average for 69 percent of the over 90 day 
- 30 - 

“both” cases, the pre-trial detention would have been reimbursed at a 

lesser amount based on the number of days the defendant was 

detained. 

• Prosecution services are reimbursed at the same amounts as pre-trial 

detention services, even though there is no evidence that prosecution 

and pre-trial detention costs are similar and should be reimbursed at 

the same rate. Additionally, there is no evidence that these amounts 

accurately reflect the actual average prosecution and detention costs 

for each Southwest Border jurisdiction. 

• Based on our analysis of the daily pre-trial detention rates, we 

determined that daily detention rates among the six jurisdictions 

ranged from $110.69 per day in San Diego to $46.00 per day in 

Brooks County, a difference of $64.69 per day. We also found that the 

average daily detention reimbursement rate among the six 

jurisdictions included in our audit was $71.57. However, the average 

daily SWBPI detention reimbursements for the 1 to 15, 16 to 30, and 

31 to 90 day reimbursement categories are $206.98, $112.79, and 

$67.97, respectively. 

• The reimbursements are based on the number of days the case was 

open rather than the time and effort spent on prosecuting the case, 

which in our judgment does not accurately reflect the actual cost to 

prosecute the case. 

• Using the number of days the defendant is detained is an accurate 

measure of the pre-trial detention costs for SWBPI cases. However, 

because SWBPI reimbursements are based on a broad range of days 

rather than the actual number of days, generally reimbursements for 

pre-trial detention services far exceeds actual costs. For example, for 

pre-trial detention only cases that fall into the 1 to 15 day 

reimbursement category, the daily pre-trial detention reimbursements 

range from $625 per day to $83 per day; the daily pre-trial detention 

reimbursements for the 16 to 30 day category range from $156 per 

day to $83 per day; and the daily pre-trial detention reimbursements 

for the 31 to 90 day category range from $121 per day to $42 per day 

depending on the number of days the defendant was actually detained. 

The average daily detention rate for the six jurisdictions was only 

$71.57 per day. Therefore, using the broad range of days rather than 

the actual number of days for SWBPI pre-trial detention 

reimbursements can result in reimbursement far in excess of actual 

costs. 
- 31 - 

All of these conditions have resulted in jurisdictions receiving 

reimbursement for unsupported and ineligible cases, and thus jurisdictions 

may be receiving reimbursements in excess of their actual costs. The 

importance of the issues is also reinforced by the fact that, as of the 4th 

quarter of FY 2006, SWBPI applicants only received 44 percent of the 

maximum reimbursement amount because reimbursement requests 

exceeded available SWBPI funding. Our findings demonstrate that OJP is not 

adequately administering and overseeing its SWBPI program. 

Recommendations 

We recommend OJP: 

1. Require SWBPI recipients to submit a list of cases in support of the 

reimbursement requests. This list should include sufficient information 

to verify the eligibility of the cases submitted for reimbursement, 

including: (1) case number, (2) defendant name, (3) arrest date, 

(4) disposition date, (5) initiating federal law enforcement agency, and 

(6) referring federal agency. Additionally, for pre-trial detention 

reimbursements the case list should include the defendant booking 

date and release date. 

2. Review reimbursement requests and the supporting case list to ensure 

that the number of cases submitted for reimbursement is accurate and 

that all cases submitted are eligible for reimbursement. 

3. Conduct monitoring activities of SWBPI recipients to: (1) ensure 

compliance with the programmatic, administrative, and fiscal 

requirements of relevant statutes, regulations, policies, and guidelines; 

(2) provide guidance on OJP policies and procedures, program 

requirements, general federal regulations, and basic programmatic, 

administrative, and reporting requirements; and (3) identify and 

resolve problems that may impede the effective administration of the 

program. 

4. Require that SWBPI recipients provide and maintain data on the actual 

prosecution and detention costs for SWBPI cases. 

5. Adjust SWBPI reimbursement amounts to more accurately reflect 

actual costs based on the cost data provided by SWBPI participants. 

6. Eliminate the “both” category and require SWBPI jurisdictions to 

submit prosecution and pre-trial detention reimbursement requests 

separately. 
- 32 - 

7. Ensure that reimbursements for prosecution services are based on the 

time and effort spent on prosecuting the case rather than the number 

of days the case was open. 

8. Ensure that pre-trial detention reimbursements are based on the 

actual number of days the defendant was detained. 

9. Ensure that pre-trial detention reimbursements are based on the 

jurisdiction’s actual daily detention rate. 
- 33 - 

II. ADDITIONAL FEDERAL PROGRAMS WITH OVERLAPPING 

OBJECTIVES

 Our audit found that OJP has not taken any action to identify 

potential duplicate funding between the SWBPI program and 

other federal prosecution and pre-trial detention reimbursement 

or grant programs. Additionally, we found that with the 

exception of El Paso County, Texas, none of the jurisdictions 

included in our audit, who received additional federal funding for 

prosecution and pre-trial detention services, took any steps to 

ensure that SWBPI reimbursements, when combined with 

additional federal funding, did not exceed the total cost 

associated with these cases. Further, none of the seven 

jurisdictions included in our audit maintained any documentation 

to support the costs associated with SWBPI cases submitted for 

reimbursement. 

At the time SWBPI reimbursement applications are submitted, the 

jurisdiction’s CEO or designee must certify that the “. . . application does not 

contain payment claims for cases already fully reimbursed by federal funds, 

or when combined with other federal reimbursement, grant, or payment 

funds, does not make payment claims in excess of 100 percent of the cost of 

prosecuting and or detaining case defendants in the reporting period.” 

Additionally, on the SWBPI application, the jurisdiction’s CEO or designee is 

required to certify that they “. . . have made the necessary application 

adjustments to account for my jurisdiction’s receiving reimbursement, 

subsidy, or the functional equivalent thereof, through other federal grant 

programs, or other reimbursable agreements with a federal agency, 

including federal grant programs that indirectly award funds to the county or 

state government for prosecution or detention services.” 

These guidelines, coupled with a concern raised by the ONDCP 

regarding the possibility of SWBPI recipients also receiving reimbursement 

for prosecution services under the HIDTA program, led us to look closely into 

the possibility of duplicate funding between the SWBPI program and other 

federal prosecution and detention reimbursement programs. 

 Additional Federal Prosecution and Detention Funding 

 

In addition to the SWBPI program, we identified three other major 

federal programs that provide funding to state and local jurisdictions for 

prosecution and detention services. These programs are the ONDCP HIDTA 

Drug Prosecution Initiatives, the OJP’s Byrne Grant Program, and the DHS 

ICE SCAAP. The potential exists for state and local governments to receive 
- 34 - 

funding from these programs and the SWBPI program and duplicate federal 

funding assistance on individual cases. 

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Drug Prosecution Initiatives 

ONDCP, a component of the Executive Office of the President, was 

established by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. The principal purpose of 

ONDCP is to establish policies, priorities, and objectives for the nation's drug 

control program. The goals of the drug control program are to reduce illicit 

drug use, manufacturing and trafficking, drug-related crime and violence, 

and drug-related health consequences. To achieve these goals, the Director 

of ONDCP is charged with producing the National Drug Control Strategy, 

which directs anti-drug efforts and establishes a program, a budget, and 

guidelines for cooperation among federal, state, and local entities. 

ONDCP also administers the HIDTA program, which provides 

assistance to federal, state, and local law enforcement entities operating in 

areas most adversely affected by drug trafficking.37 A central feature of the 

HIDTA program is the discretion granted to HIDTA executive boards to 

design and carry out activities that reflect the specific drug trafficking 

threats found in each HIDTA region. In FY 2006, HIDTA funding totaled 

$224.7 million, of which $7 million was budgeted for locally designed 

strategies for prosecution. The HIDTA Prosecution Initiatives are an optional 

initiative for local HIDTAs and their executive boards, which determine if an 

initiative is needed in their area. The HIDTA Prosecution Initiatives funding 

covers salaries and some fringe benefits for prosecutors to work on drug 

related HIDTA cases. The possibility for duplicate funding occurs when a 

state or local organization submits a SWBPI reimbursement application for a 

HIDTA drug case that was prosecuted by a HIDTA-funded prosecutor. 

Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program 

The Byrne Grant Program is a partnership among federal, state, and 

local governments to create safer communities. Byrne grants afford 

agencies the flexibility to prioritize and place its federal grant funds where 

they are needed most. In FY 2006, Byrne grant funding totaled 

$292 million. 

Byrne grant funds can be used for state and local initiatives, technical 

assistance, training, personnel, equipment, supplies, contractual support, 

and information systems for criminal justice for any one or more of the 

 37 HIDTA was reauthorized in the Office of National Drug Control Policy 

Reimbursement Act of 2006 (21 U.S.C § 1701 [2006]). 
- 35 - 

following purpose areas: (1) law enforcement programs, (2) prosecution 

and court programs, (3) prevention and education programs, (4) corrections 

and community corrections programs, (5) drug treatment programs, and 

(6) planning, evaluation, and technology improvement programs. The 

possibility for duplicate funding occurs when jurisdictions receive both 

SWBPI prosecution reimbursements and Byrne grant prosecution funds for 

the same case. 

State Criminal Alien Assistance Program 

BJA administers SCAAP in conjunction with the DHS ICE. SCAAP 

provides federal payments to states and localities that incur correctional 

officer salary costs for incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens who have 

at least one felony or two misdemeanor convictions for violations of state or 

local laws, and who are incarcerated for at least four consecutive days 

during the reporting period. Due to the complex nature of immigration 

status, DHS ICE makes the final decision on the status of submitted inmate 

records to determine if the inmate is an undocumented criminal alien. 

To apply for SCAAP funding, the jurisdictions must submit inmate data 

files – including identifiable information – on the inmate that are used to 

determine SCAAP eligibility. The per diem cost is derived by dividing the 

jurisdiction’s total inmate days into the total correctional officer salary costs. 

As stated in Finding I, we found that the seven entities tested during 

our audit did not supply OJP with documentation supporting their SWBPI 

reimbursement requests and did not maintain records tracking the actual 

costs associated with SWBPI cases. Further, the CEOs for each SWBPI 

recipient certified that total federal funds for SWBPI cases did not exceed 

100 percent of the jurisdiction’s annualized costs. However, none of the 

seven jurisdictions included in our audit maintained any documentation to 

support costs associated with SWBPI cases submitted for reimbursement. 

Thus none of the SWBPI recipients ensured that reimbursements did not 

exceed costs. As a result, the jurisdictions included in our audit made 

unsupported certifications in each quarterly SWBPI reimbursement 

application that total federal funds did not exceed 100 percent of the 

jurisdiction’s annualized costs as detailed in the following sections. 
- 36 - 

Analysis of Additional Federal Prosecution Funding 

 We determined that six of the seven jurisdictions included in our audit 

received HIDTA, Byrne, and other federal prosecution funds totaling 

$27 million, as shown in Table 10.38 

TABLE 10.

PROSECUTION GRANTS RECEIVED BY SWBPI RECIPIENTS 

HIDTA BYRNE OTHER TOTAL

El Paso County $ 2,281,578 - $ 2,067,520 $4,349,098

New Mexico DPS 2,639,254 - $6,074,948 8,714,202

Maricopa County 1,638,836 4,699,239 - 6,338,075

Yuma County 1,637,388 1,775,948 - 3,413,336

San Diego 2,394,462 - 126,856 2,521,318

San Francisco - 1,862,802 - 1,862,802

Brooks County - - - - 

TOTAL $10,591,518 $8,337,989 $8,269,324 $27,198,831

Source: OJP, ONDCP, and SWBPI recipients

 Between FYs 2002 and 2006, El Paso County received federal 

prosecution funding totaling $4.35 million. Despite the fact that El Paso 

County certified on its SWBPI applications that SWBPI reimbursements when 

combined with other federal funding did not exceed 100 percent of their 

costs, El Paso County could not provide any data on actual costs to 

prosecute the SWBPI cases. However, El Paso County did deduct 

$1.51 million from its eligible SWBPI reimbursements to account for a 

portion of the additional federal prosecution funding received by the County. 

Although El Paso County did not track its costs to prosecute SWBPI cases, 

according to El Paso County officials the $1.51 million was deducted from 

their SWBPI reimbursement requests in an attempt to ensure that federal 

funding did not exceed 100 percent of the costs to prosecute SWBPI case. 

 38 The other grants include the Criminal Enterprise Unit Grant; Drug Prosecution 

Grant; Rural Domestic Violence Grant; and the Community Gun Violence Program 
- 37 - 

Between FY 2002 and 2006, Brooks County did not receive any 

additional federal prosecution funding. However, between FY 2002 and 

2006, New Mexico DPS, Maricopa County, Yuma County, San Diego, and 

San Francisco received federal prosecution funds totaling $8.71 million, 

$6.34 million, $3.41 million, $2.52 million, and $1.86 million respectively. 

Despite the fact that each of these jurisdictions certified in its SWBPI 

applications that SWBPI reimbursements when combined with other federal 

funding did not exceed 100 percent of their costs, none of the jurisdictions 

could provide any data on actual costs to prosecute SWBPI cases. 

Additionally, we found that none of these jurisdictions took any steps to 

ensure that SWBPI reimbursements received for these cases did not 

duplicate funding received under other federal prosecution grants. 

Therefore, the possibility exists that these jurisdictions received duplicate 

funding. 

 

As stated previously, on the SWBPI application the jurisdictions’ CEOs 

or designees are required to certify that they have made the necessary 

adjustments to its reimbursement request to account for any other federal 

funding for prosecution or detention services. However, despite the fact that 

six of the seven jurisdictions included in our audit received additional federal 

funds for prosecution services, we found that with the exception of El Paso 

County none of the jurisdictions have taken any action to ensure they were 

not receiving duplicate federal prosecution funds. In our judgment, the 

seven jurisdictions included in our audit made unsupported certifications in 

each quarterly SWBPI reimbursement application that the total federal funds 

provided to the jurisdiction for SWBPI cases during the reporting period did 

not exceed 100 percent of the jurisdiction’s annualized costs for prosecution 

services. 

As stated previously, OJP should obtain sufficient cost data from each 

SWBPI recipient to ensure that reimbursements are linked to actual costs 

associated with SWBPI cases. Each recipient should track and maintain 

sufficient data on the costs associated with SWBPI cases to support its 

certification that total federal funds received do not exceed 100 percent of 

the annualized costs for its SWBPI cases. This is consistent with the 

requirements of other reimbursement programs administered by OJP, such 

as SCAAP, which requires that recipients provide actual cost information to 

determine the per day reimbursement rate. 

Analysis of Additional Federal Detention Funding 

Since the SWBPI program also includes reimbursements for pre-trial 

detention services, we looked at the possibility of duplicate funding with 

SCAAP. Five of the seven jurisdictions included in our audit received SCAAP 
- 38 - 

funds totaling $95,559 for pre-trial detention services provided in SWBPI 

cases submitted for reimbursement.39 Specifically, 

• San Diego received pre-trial detention SCAAP funding totaling 

$49,232 for 433 cases that were also submitted for pre-trial detention 

reimbursement under the SWBPI program. In addition, there are 

82 SWBPI cases for which SCAAP reimbursement has been requested 

but not yet received. 

• El Paso County received pre-trial detention SCAAP funding totaling 

$19,499 for 37 cases that were also submitted for pre-trial detention 

reimbursement under the SWBPI program. In addition, there are 

45 SWBPI cases for which SCAAP reimbursement has been requested 

but not yet received. 

• Yuma County received pre-trial detention SCAAP funding totaling 

$21,415 for 18 cases that were also submitted for pre-trial detention 

reimbursement under the SWBPI program. In addition, there are 

three cases for which SCAAP reimbursement has been requested but 

not yet received. 

• Maricopa County received pre-trial detention SCAAP funding totaling 

$5,413 for 14 cases that were also submitted for pre-trial detention 

reimbursement under the SWBPI program. In addition, there are 

10 cases for which SCAAP reimbursement has been requested but not 

yet received. 

• San Francisco received SCAAP funds totaling $7,191,393. However, 

San Francisco was unable to provide a list of cases submitted for 

reimbursement because their SWBPI submissions were not based on 

specific cases. As a result, we were unable to determine if San 

Francisco received pre-trial detention SCAAP funding for any of its 

SWBPI pre-trial detention cases. 

Despite the fact that four of the seven jurisdictions included in our 

audit received additional federal funds for pre-trial detention services, we 

found that none of the jurisdictions have taken any action to ensure they 

were not receiving duplicate SCAAP funds. In our judgment, the seven 

 39 New Mexico DPS was not included in our analysis because New Mexico DPS only 

submits reimbursement requests for prosecution services. As a result, our audit only 

included SWBPI reimbursements for prosecution services. SWBPI pre-trial detention 

reimbursement requests for the State of New Mexico are submitted separately by the 

counties. Also, Brooks County was not included in our analysis because it did not receive 

SCAAP funding between FY 2002 through FY 2006. 
- 39 - 

jurisdictions included in our audit made unsupported certifications in each 

quarterly SWBPI reimbursement application that the total federal funds 

provided to the jurisdiction for SWBPI cases during the reporting period did 

not exceed 100 percent of the jurisdiction’s annualized costs for prosecution 

and pre-trial detention services. 

We met with OJP officials to discuss the possibility of duplicate funding 

between the SWBPI program and other federal programs that provide 

funding for prosecution and pre-trial detention services. Based on our 

discussion, we found that OJP has not taken any action to identify potential 

duplicate funding between the three programs. Specifically, the OJP official 

responsible for both the SWBPI program and SCAAP stated that there is not 

enough information collected from SWBPI reimbursements to identify 

duplicate funding. 

Recommendations 

We recommend OJP: 

10. Ensure that SWBPI recipients maintain sufficient documentation to 

support that SWBPI reimbursements, when combined with other 

federal prosecution and pre-trial detention funding, do not exceed 

100 percent of the costs to prosecute SWBPI cases. 

11. Ensure that SWBPI recipients make the necessary adjustments to 

SWBPI applications to account for other federal prosecution and 

pre-trial detention funding. 

12. Review SWBPI reimbursement applications to identify any potential 

duplicate funding. 
- 40 - 

This page intentionally left blank. 
- 41 - 

III. ALLOWABILITY OF REIMBURSEMENTS 

 

 We completed seven external audits of individual SWBPI 

recipients to determine if SWBPI reimbursements were 

allowable, supported, and in accordance with applicable laws, 

regulations, guidelines, and terms and conditions of the SWBPI 

program. Our audits covered SWBPI reimbursements totaling 

$55.11 million and identified unallowable and unsupported 

SWBPI reimbursements of $15.57 million, which equates to 

28 percent of the total reimbursements. 40 In addition, we 

identified funds to be put to better use totaling $27,500 related 

to unsupported and ineligible cases submitted for reimbursement 

that had not yet been paid.41 

 

Prior to the initiation of this audit, the OIG conducted audits of three 

SWBPI recipients: (1) New Mexico DPS; (2) Yuma County; and (3) Maricopa 

County.42 As part of the verification phase of the audit, the OIG conducted 

four additional audits of: (4) El Paso County; (5) San Diego; (6) Brooks 

County; and (7) San Francisco. The purpose of these audits was to 

determine if SWBPI reimbursements were allowable, supported, and in 

accordance with applicable laws, regulations, guidelines, and terms and 

conditions of the SWBPI program. In conducting the audits, we determined 

whether the: 

• quarterly reimbursement requests were supported and accurate; 

• cases were submitted for reimbursement in the correct quarters, (the 

quarter in which the case was resolved); 

• cases were federally initiated; 

• cases were federally declined and referred to the state or local 

jurisdiction for prosecution; 

 40 Our audit of New Mexico DPS only included SWBPI funding totaling $3,780,438 

received by the 2nd, 3rd, and 11th, Judicial Districts for the period October 2003 to March 

2005. 

41 The dollar-related findings identified in our reviews of the seven SWBPI recipients 

were addressed in separate external audit reports. Thus, we are not offering any 

recommendations in this report specific to the $15.57 million in unallowable and 

unsupported reimbursements and $27,500 in funds to be put to better use. 

42 The 11th Judicial District is comprised of two divisions. However, our audit only 

included Division I, which received 18 percent of the total SWBPI funds received by the 

State of New Mexico. 
- 42 - 

• cases were prosecuted by the state or county prosecutor; 

• defendant was detained at a minimum overnight for the pre-trial 

detention cases; and 

• reimbursement amounts were calculated correctly. 

 

Based on the external audits of seven individual SWBPI recipients, we 

identified unallowable and unsupported SWBPI reimbursements of 

$15.57 million, which equates to 28 percent of the total reimbursements. In 

addition, we identified funds to be put to better use totaling $27,500 related 

to unsupported and ineligible cases submitted for reimbursement that had 

not yet been paid. In our judgment, the significant amount of dollar-related 

findings identified during our audits of SWBPI recipients is due in part to the 

fact that OJP is not adequately overseeing or monitoring the SWBPI 

program. As discussed in Finding I, we found that OJP does not require 

SWBPI applicants to provide documentation supporting the number of cases 

submitted for reimbursement through the electronic application. 

Additionally, OJP does not review the application’s accuracy or determine the 

eligibility of the cases submitted for reimbursement and has not conducted 

any monitoring activities of SWBPI recipients. The results of our SWBPI 

audits are discussed in detail in the following sections. 

Accuracy of Reimbursements 

SWBPI recipients request reimbursements of SWBPI funds through an 

on-line application available on the BJA SWBPI website. Pursuant to the 

SWBPI guidelines, eligible cases are reimbursed using a uniform payment 

per case schedule based on the length of disposition, which is calculated 

from the date of the suspect’s arrest through resolution. Resolution of the 

case is defined as dismissal, conviction, or plea. 

We reviewed the reimbursement requests from all seven external 

audits to determine if the number of cases claimed for each disposition 

category was supported by the detailed case list obtained during fieldwork. 

Based on our review, we determined that the reimbursement requests were 

not always supported by the master case list, resulting in excess 

reimbursements totaling $5.92 million.43 

 43 Of the $5.92 million in excess reimbursements, $5.4 million was specific to 

San Francisco. Although San Francisco provided two separate lists in support of the SWBPI 

cases submitted for reimbursement, according to San Francisco officials neither list was 

representative of the SWBPI cases submitted for reimbursement because the SWBPI 

submissions were not based on actual cases. As a result, we found that all of the SWBPI 

reimbursements submitted by San Francisco were not supported. 
- 43 - 

We also reviewed the detailed case list to determine if the cases were 

submitted in the correct quarter - the quarter in which the case was 

resolved. Based on our review, we identified 339 cases that were submitted 

for reimbursement in the wrong quarter, resulting in questioned costs of 

$793,933. 

In our judgment, these questioned costs could have been avoided if 

OJP required recipients to submit documentation in support of the 

reimbursement requests. As stated in Finding I, at a minimum recipients 

should be required to submit a detailed list of cases for which they are 

requesting reimbursement. This is consistent with the requirements of other 

reimbursement programs administered by OJP, such as SCAAP, which 

requires a list of inmates, identifying information, and the length of 

detention. 

Case Eligibility 

Pursuant to the SWBPI guidelines, an eligible case is any federally 

initiated criminal case that the U.S. Attorney declined to prosecute and 

referred to the state or county for prosecution. The SWBPI guidelines define 

federally initiated as a case resulting from a criminal investigation or an 

arrest involving federal law enforcement authorities for a potential violation 

of federal criminal law. This may include investigations resulting from 

multi-jurisdictional task forces, (such as HIDTA and the Organized Crime 

Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF)). The SWBPI guidelines further 

state that, “referred cases are eligible regardless of whether the case was 

formally declined and referred by a U.S. Attorney, or through a blanket 

federal declination-referral policy, an accepted federal law enforcement 

practice, or by federal prosecutorial discretion.” Federally referred cases 

that are declined and not prosecuted by the state or county are not eligible 

for reimbursement.

At each site, we selected and analyzed a sample of cases submitted by 

the recipient to determine whether the cases were eligible for 

reimbursement under the requirements of the SWBPI guidelines. We 

identified 1,637 cases that were not eligible for reimbursement, resulting in 

questioned costs totaling $8.28 million and funds to be put to better use 

totaling $27,500. Specifically, we found: 

• 985 cases that were not federally initiated, resulting in questioned 

costs of $5,164,302 and funds to be put to better use of $17,500; 
- 44 - 

• 208 cases for which the recipient had not retained supporting case 

documentation resulting in questioned costs totaling $826,003 and 

funds to be put to better use of $10,000; 

• 142 cases for which the same defendant was submitted for 

reimbursement more than once resulting in questioned costs totaling 

$888,517; and 

• 302 cases submitted for pre-trial detention reimbursement for which 

the defendant was not detained overnight resulting in questioned costs 

totaling $1,399,134. 

 

A summary of the findings identified for each site are illustrated in 

Table 11. 

 

TABLE 11. 

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FROM PRIOR OIG SWBPI AUDITS 

SITE

NOT 

FEDERALLY 

INITIATED

RECORD 

RETENTION 

PROBLEMS

DUPLICATE 

DEFENDANT 

SUBMITTED 

DEFENDANT 

NOT 

DETAINED 

OVERNIGHT TOTALS

NUMBER OF 

CASES 203 - 4 - 207 

QUESTIONED 

COSTS 44 $706,164 - $10,922 - $717,086 

NEW 

MEXICO 

DPS 

FUNDS TO BETTER 

USE45 - - - - - 

NUMBER OF 

CASES 9 - - 16 25 

QUESTIONED 

COSTS $16,272 - - $62,919 $79,191 

YUMA 

COUNTY

FUNDS TO BETTER 

USE $17,500 - - - $17,500 

 44 Questioned Costs are expenditures that do not comply with legal, regulatory, or 

contractual requirements, or are not supported by adequate documentation at the time of 

the audit, or are unnecessary or unreasonable. Questioned costs may be remedied by 

offset, waiver, recovery of funds, or the provision of supporting documentation. 

45 Funds Put to Better Use are funds not yet expended that could be used more 

efficiently if management took actions to implement and complete audit recommendations. 
- 45 - 

SITE

NOT 

FEDERALLY 

INITIATED

RECORD 

RETENTION 

PROBLEMS

DUPLICATE 

DEFENDANT 

SUBMITTED 

DEFENDANT 

NOT 

DETAINED 

OVERNIGHT TOTALS

NUMBER OF 

CASES 3 39 - - 42 

QUESTIONED 

COSTS $16,409 $176,948 - - $193,357 

MARICOPA 

COUNTY

FUNDS TO BETTER 

USE - $10,000 - - $10,000 

NUMBER OF 

CASES 627 - 131 269 1,027 

QUESTIONED 

COSTS $3,768,750 - $848,250 $1,272,500 $5,889,500

EL PASO 

COUNTY46

FUNDS TO BETTER 

USE - - - - - 

NUMBER OF 

CASES 12 9 1 15 37 

QUESTIONED 

COSTS $69,116 $27,010 $5,000 $56,250 $157,376 

SAN DIEGO 

FUNDS TO BETTER 

USE - - - - - 

NUMBER OF 

CASES 131 160 6 2 299 

QUESTIONED 

COSTS $587,591 $622,045 $24,345 $7,465 $1,241,446

BROOKS 

COUNTY

FUNDS TO BETTER 

USE - - - - - 

NUMBER OF 

CASES - - - - - 

QUESTIONED 

COSTS - - - - - 

SAN 

FRANCISCO

FUNDS TO BETTER 

USE - - - - - 

TOTAL NUMBER 

OF CASES 985 208 142 302 1637 

TOTAL 

QUESTIONED 

COSTS $5,164,302 $826,003 $888,517 $1,399,134 $8,277,956

TOTALS

TOTAL FUNDS 

TO BETTER USE $ 17,500 $ 10,000 - - $ 27,500

Source: Prior OIG SWBPI audits 

 46 The questioned costs for El Paso County are based on the unallowable amounts 

requested, not received. 
- 46 - 

Feedback From SWBPI Recipients 

At each of the seven sites included in our audit, we asked officials for 

feedback on OJP’s administration of the SWBPI program. Officials at all 

seven sites stated that OJP has not provided any training on the SWBPI 

guidelines. Additionally, four of the recipients stated that they had trouble 

understanding the guidelines and one recipient stated that it thought it 

understood the guidelines until we conducted our audit. 

We also asked officials in each of the seven SWBPI sites if there was 

anything unclear about the SWBPI program that hindered its success. The 

officials provided the following responses: 

• The guidelines are open for interpretation. 

• There is a lack of training. 

• Case lists should be submitted with applications. 

• No alerts are given as to when billing periods are open. 

• No advance notice is given on when payments will be made. 

• No advance notice is given as to how much the payment will be. 

Based on the results of our external audits and the comments we 

received in the seven jurisdictions, in our judgment OJP also needs to 

provide training to the participating jurisdictions to help clarify the SWBPI 

guidelines. 

 

Recommendation 

We recommend OJP: 

13. Provide training to the participating jurisdictions on the SWBPI 

guidelines. 
- 47 - 

STATEMENT ON INTERNAL CONTROLS 

 In planning and performing our audit of OJP’s administration of the 

SWBPI program, we considered OJP’s internal controls for the purpose of 

determining our auditing procedures. The evaluation of OJP was not made 

for the purpose of providing assurance on the internal control structure as a 

whole. However, we noted certain matters that we consider reportable 

conditions under the generally accepted Government Auditing Standards.

47

Finding I 

• OJP does not adequately oversee the SWBPI program. 

• Applicants are not required to provide any documentation supporting 

reimbursement requests. 

• OJP does not review the applications for accuracy or conduct any 

monitoring activities to determine the eligibility of cases submitted for 

reimbursement. 

• Reimbursements are not based on actual costs incurred by the 

jurisdictions to prosecute federally declined-referred criminal cases. 

• None of the seven jurisdictions included in our audit maintained any 

documentation to support costs associated with SWBPI cases 

submitted for reimbursement. 

Finding II 

• OJP has not taken any action to identify potential duplicate funding 

between the SWBPI program and other federal prosecution and 

pre-trial detention reimbursement or grant programs. 

 Because we are not expressing an opinion on OJP’s internal control 

structure as a whole, this statement is intended solely for the information 

and use of OJP in administering the SWBPI program.

 

 47 Reportable conditions involve matters coming to our attention relating to 

significant deficiencies in the design or operation of the internal control structure that, in our 

judgment, could adversely affect OJP’s ability to administer the SWBPI program. 
- 48 - 

This page intentionally left blank. 
- 49 - 

STATEMENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS 

AND REGULATIONS 

 As required by the Government Auditing Standards, we tested OJP’s 

records and documents pertaining to the SWBPI program to obtain 

reasonable assurance OJP complied with laws and regulations that, if not 

complied with, in our judgment could have a material effect on the 

administration of the SWBPI program. Compliance with laws and regulations 

applicable to the SWBPI program is the responsibility of OJP management. 

An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about compliance 

with laws and regulations. At the time of this audit, the pertinent legislation 

could be found in: Pub. L. No. 107-77 (2001), the Departments of 

Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act, 2002, and all subsequent SWBPI appropriations. 

 

Except for the issues discussed in the Findings and Recommendations 

section of this report, nothing came to our attention that caused us to 

believe that OJP management was not in compliance with the federal 

regulations governing the SWBPI program listed above. 
- 50 - 

This page intentionally left blank. 
- 51 - 

APPENDIX I 

OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY 

The objectives of the audit were to: (1) evaluate OJP’s administration 

and management of SWBPI reimbursements; (2) identify additional federal 

programs with overlapping objectives; and (3) determine if SWBPI 

reimbursement requests submitted by eligible jurisdictions are allowable, 

supported, and in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, guidelines, 

and terms and conditions of the SWBPI program. 

We conducted our audit in accordance with Government Auditing 

Standards. We included such tests as were necessary to accomplish the 

audit objectives. The audit generally covered, but is not limited to, SWBPI 

reimbursements received during the period FYs 2002 through 2006. Audit 

work was conducted at OJP, ONDCP, ATF, DEA, FBI, EOUSA and the 

following selected SWBPI recipients: (1) New Mexico DPS; (2) Yuma County, 

Arizona; (3) Maricopa County, Arizona; (4) El Paso County, Texas; (5) San 

Diego, California; (6) Brooks County, Texas; and (7) San Francisco, 

California. 48 

To evaluate the effectiveness of OJP’s administration and oversight 

over SWBPI reimbursements, we assessed the processes used by OJP for 

reviewing and approving applications, reimbursing funds, and monitoring 

recipients. Specifically, we: 

• identified the SWBPI guidelines and determined whether the criteria 

was complete and well-defined, 

• evaluated OJP’s process for verifying the eligibility and accuracy of 

cases submitted for reimbursement, 

• evaluated OJP’s process for monitoring SWBPI recipients, 

• assessed the quality of guidance provided by OJP to ensure critical 

program requirements are understood and met by recipients, 

• coordinated with the U.S. Attorneys and federal law enforcement 

agencies and examined their declination-referral policies along with 

their working relationship with the state and local law enforcement,

 48 Our audit of New Mexico only included SWBPI funding received for the period 

October 2003 to March 2005 and it included the 2nd, 3rd and 11th judicial districts of the 

New Mexico DPS. 
- 52 - 

• assessed the accuracy of the reimbursement amounts and categories,

• reviewed recipient data to determine the combined federal 

reimbursement amounts received did not exceed 100 percent of the 

jurisdictions annualized costs for prosecution and pre-trial detention 

services, and 

• reviewed recipient data to determine the dollar amounts jurisdictions 

would have received if the prosecution and pre-trial detention services 

were calculated separately. 

To identify any potential duplicate funding sources, we: 

• coordinated with ONDCP to determine if its HIDTA prosecution funds 

are duplicated with SWBPI funds, 

• coordinated with OJP to determine if SCAAP detention funds are 

duplicated with SWBPI funds, 

• reviewed recipient data to determine if HIDTA funds and other federal 

prosecution funds are being requested for the same prosecutions, and 

• reviewed recipient data to determine if SCAAP funds and SWBPI funds 

are being requested for the same detention services. 

To determine if SWBPI reimbursements are allowable, supported, and 

in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, guidelines, and terms and 

conditions of the SWBPI program, we: 

• selected a sample of SWBPI recipients and conducted audits of OJP’s 

administration of the selected recipients, and 

• assessed the allowability of cases reimbursed in accordance with 

applicable laws, regulations, guidelines, and terms and conditions of 

the program. 

 

We included the work performed in prior OIG SWBPI audits in our 

assessment of the allowability of cases reimbursed. 
- 53 - 

APPENDIX II 

SWBPI REIMBURSEMENT IN EXCESS OF SUPPORTED 

COSTS 

(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)49

SITE

FISCAL 

YEAR

SWBPI

REIMBURSEMENT 

RECEIVED

SUPPORTED

COSTS BY 

RECIPIENT DIFFERENCE

2002 $ 3.62 $0.00 $ 3.62 

2003 4.87 0.00 4.87 

2004 4.03 0.00 4.03 

2005 4.41 0.00 4.41 

2006 2.47 0.00 2.47 

NEW MEXICO 

DPS 

Total $19.41 $0.00 $19.41 

2002 $ 1.69 $0.00 $1.69 

2003 1.87 >0.01 1.87 

2004 0.64 0.02 0.61 

2005 2.45 0.04 2.41 

2006 0.95 0.03 0.92 

BROOKS 

COUNTY

Total $7.59 $0.09 $7.49 

2002 $ 5.90 $ 2.48 $3.41 

2003 3.51 1.32 2.19 

2004 3.34 1.32 2.02 

2005 2.57 2.19 0.38 

2006 2.54 2.74 (0.20) 

SAN DIEGO 

Total $17.85 $10.04 $7.80 

 49 Differences in the total amounts are due to rounding. 
- 54 - 

SITE

FISCAL 

YEAR

SWBPI

REIMBURSEMENT 

RECEIVED

SUPPORTED

COSTS BY 

RECIPIENT DIFFERENCE

2002 $3.07 $1.23 $1.84 

2003 2.80 0.73 2.07 

2004 0.84 0.16 0.68 

2005 1.70 0.82 0.87 

2006 1.50 0.66 0.83 

EL PASO 

COUNTY

Total $9.90 $3.61 $6.29 

2002 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 

2003 0.00 0.00 0.00 

2004 0.04 0.00 0.04 

2005 1.71 0.00 1.71 

2006 3.67 0.00 3.67 

SAN 

FRANCISCO,

CITY &

COUNTY

Total $5.41 $0.00 $5.41 

2002 $0.76 0.26 $0.48 

2003 0.86 0.21 0.65 

2004 0.67 0.15 0.52 

2005 0.43 0.17 0.26 

2006 0.41 0.00 0.41 

YUMA 

COUNTY

Total $3.13 $0.78 $2.34 

2002 0.57 0.15 $0.42 

2003 0.57 0.18 0.40 

2004 0.51 0.14 0.37 

2005 0.49 0.55 (0.05) 

2006 0.47 0.58 (0.11) 

MARICOPA 

COUNTY

Total $2.61 $1.59 $1.02 

RECIPIENT TOTAL $65.90 $16.12 $49.78 

Scope: New Mexico DPS, Brooks County, San Diego, El Paso County, San Francisco, Yuma 

County, Maricopa County, and OIG analysis 
- 55 - 

APPENDIX III 

SWBPI REIMBURSEMENTS BY RECIPIENT 

(Dollars in Millions)50

RECIPIENT FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 TOTALS

Arizona 

State of Arizona $0.43 $0.35 $ 0.49 $0.30 $ 0.20 $ 1.76 

Cochise Co. >0.01 0.72 0.16 0.11 0.01 1.00 

Coconino Co. --- 0.01 --- --- 0.44 0.45 

Maricopa Co. 0.57 0.57 0.51 0.49 0.60 2.74 

Navajo Co. 0.66 0.52 0.25 0.21 0.04 1.69 

Pima Co. --- 0.20 0.05 0.02 0.17 0.43 

Santa Cruz Co. 0.16 0.19 0.03 0.12 0.13 0.62 

Yavapai Co. 0.37 --- --- --- --- 0.37 

Yuma Co. 0.81 0.85 0.66 0.45 1.11 3.88 

Total $3.00 $3.41 $ 2.14 $1.70 $ 2.70 $ 12.95 

California 

Alameda Co. 0.13 0.01 --- 0.03 >0.01 $ 0.18 

Colusa Co. --- --- --- >0.01 --- >0.01 

Contra Costa Co. 0.08 0.05 --- 0.11 0.06 0.29 

Fresno Co. 0.62 0.36 0.62 0.25 0.35 2.20 

Humboldt Co. --- --- --- 0.21 0.30 0.51 

Imperial Co. 0.45 0.70 0.32 0.23 0.25 1.95 

Kern Co. 0.31 0.51 0.15 0.13 0.15 1.24 

Kings Co. 0.49 0.61 1.75 1.07 0.73 4.64 

Lake Co. --- --- --- --- 0.17 0.17 

Los Angeles Co. 3.45 2.78 0.93 2.02 1.91 11.09 

Marin Co. 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.04 0.37 

Mendocino Co. 0.22 0.24 0.18 0.05 0.45 1.15 

Merced Co. 0.10 0.14 0.05 0.08 0.01 0.37 

Monterey Co. 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.01 0.15 

Orange Co. 0.73 0.44 0.79 0.87 0.69 3.53 

Riverside Co. 2.71 3.54 1.82 1.34 1.00 10.41 

Sacramento Co. 0.13 0.16 --- 0.23 0.20 0.72 

San Benito Co. --- --- --- 0.04 0.17 0.21 

San Bernardino Co. 1.29 0.85 1.27 0.72 2.47 6.60 

San Diego Co. 5.90 3.51 3.47 2.59 2.54 18.00 

San Francisco Co. --- --- 0.04 1.71 3.67 5.41 

San Luis Obispo Co. 0.06 0.10 --- 0.05 --- 0.20 

San Mateo Co. --- --- 0.24 0.26 0.35 0.86 

Santa Barbara Co. --- --- 0.13 0.07 --- 0.20 

Santa Clara Co. 0.70 0.81 0.25 0.19 0.13 2.09 

Santa Cruz Co. --- --- --- 0.18 0.12 0.30 

Siskiyou Co. --- --- --- 0.19 0.36 0.54 

Sonoma Co. 0.11 0.02 --- --- --- 0.12 

Stanislaus Co. 0.03 0.22 0.16 0.03 0.03 0.47 

Tulare Co. 0.04 0.21 0.08 0.02 0.03 0.38 

Ventura Co. 0.84 0.27 0.42 0.16 0.16 1.83 

Total $18.45 $15.63 $12.78 $13.00 $16.32 $ 76.19 

 50 Differences in the total amounts are due to rounding. 
- 56 - 

RECIPIENT FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 TOTALS

New Mexico 

Bernalillo Co. --- 0.14 0.38 0.09 0.10 0.70

Chaves Co. 0.17 0.23 --- --- 0.01 0.41

Curry Co. 0.02 0.04 --- 0.11 >0.01 0.17 

Dona Ana Co. --- 1.13 1.45 0.69 0.61 3.88 

Eddy Co. 0.06 0.11 --- 0.13 --- 0.30 

Grant Co. 0.03 0.02 --- --- --- 0.04 

Hidalgo Co. 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.19 

Lea Co. 0.05 0.32 0.01 --- --- 0.38 

Luna Co. 0.31 0.21 0.17 0.13 0.06 0.88 

State of New Mexico 3.62 4.87 4.03 4.41 2.47 19.41 

Otero Co. 0.70 0.65 --- 0.14 0.26 1.75 

Roosevelt Co. >0.01 0.01 --- >0.01 --- 0.01 

San Juan Co. 0.75 0.62 0.45 0.53 --- 2.35 

Sierra Co. 0.02 >0.01 --- --- --- 0.02 

Taos Co. 0.02 0.05 --- --- --- 0.07 

Quay Co. --- --- --- --- 0.02 0.02 

Total $5.75 $8.45 $ 6.54 $ 6.26 $ 3.59 $ 30.58 

Texas 

Bexar Co. 0.15 0.20 0.17 0.13 0.12 $ 0.76 

Brewster Co. 0.02 --- 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 

Brooks Co. 1.69 1.94 0.73 2.53 0.94 7.82 

Cameron Co. --- 0.38 0.35 0.16 0.17 1.06 

Culberson Co. --- --- --- --- >0.01 >0.01 

Dallas Co. 0.30 0.77 0.73 0.29 0.17 2.25 

Duval Co. --- --- --- 0.02 0.01 0.03 

El Paso Co. 5.04 4.06 1.19 1.77 1.41 13.47 

Fayette Co. --- 0.01 --- >0.01 >0.01 0.02 

Grayson Co. 0.01 --- --- --- --- 0.01 

Harris Co. 0.33 0.46 --- 0.06 0.45 1.30 

Henderson Co. 0.08 --- --- --- --- 0.08 

Hill Co. --- --- --- --- >0.01 >0.01

Hudspeth Co. 1.53 1.17 1.24 0.80 0.48 5.21 

Jim Hogg Co. --- --- 0.40 0.27 0.26 0.94 

Kinney Co. 0.08 0.03 0.18 0.06 0.03 0.39 

Kleberg Co. 1.27 0.87 0.98 0.43 0.33 3.89 

Lubbock Co. --- 0.02 0.01 --- 0.01 0.03 

Maverick Co. 0.93 0.78 0.71 0.44 0.19 3.05 

McLennan Co. 0.15 0.12 0.09 0.03 0.08 0.46 

Medina Co. --- 0.01 --- --- --- 0.01 

Presidio Co. 0.11 0.06 0.03 0.07 0.01 0.27 

Travis Co. 0.09 0.20 --- --- --- 0.29 

Tarrant Co. --- --- --- --- >0.01 >0.01

Val Verde Co. --- 0.02 --- --- --- 0.02 

Zapata Co. --- --- --- --- 0.01 0.01 

Total $11.77 $11.07 $ 6.82 $ 7.04 $ 4.71 $ 41.41 

SWBPI Totals $38.97 $38.55 $28.28 $28.00 $27.33 $161.13 

Source: Office of Justice Programs 
- 57 - 

APPENDIX IV
- 58 - 
- 59 - 
- 60 - 
- 61 - 
- 62 - 

This page intentionally left blank 
- 63 - 

APPENDIX V 

ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF ACTIONS 

NECESSARY TO CLOSE THE REPORT

1. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when we receive 

documentation supporting that OJP has implemented requirements 

that SWBPI recipients submit a list of cases in support of the 

reimbursement requests. This list should include sufficient information 

to verify the eligibility of the cases submitted for reimbursement, 

including: (1) case number, (2) defendant name, (3) arrest date, 

(4) disposition date, (5) initiating federal law enforcement agency, and 

(6) referring federal agency. Additionally, for pre-trial detention 

reimbursements the case list should include the defendant booking 

date and release date. 

2. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when OJP provides 

documentation supporting that the SWBPI system has been modified 

to facilitate reviews of the reimbursement requests and supporting 

case information to ensure that the number of cases submitted for 

reimbursement is accurate and that all cases submitted are eligible for 

reimbursement. 

3. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when OJP provides 

documentation supporting that programmatic and financial monitoring 

guidelines for SWBPI recipients have been developed and implemented 

to: (1) ensure compliance with the programmatic, administrative, and 

fiscal requirements of relevant statutes, regulations, policies, and 

guidelines; (2) provide guidance on OJP policies and procedures, 

program requirements, general federal regulations, and basic 

programmatic, administrative, and reporting requirements; and 

(3) identify and resolve problems that may impede the effective 

administration of the program. 

4. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when OJP provides 

documentation supporting that the SWBPI system has been modified 

to facilitate the collection of actual prosecution and detention costs for 

SWBPI cases. 
- 64 - 

5. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when OJP provides 

documentation supporting that the SWBPI system has been modified 

to ensure that SWBPI reimbursement amounts are adjusted to more 

accurately reflect actual costs based on the cost data provided by 

SWBPI participants. 

6. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when OJP provides 

documentation supporting that the “both” category has been 

eliminated and the instructions to SWBPI jurisdictions have been 

revised to require that prosecution and pre-trial detention 

reimbursement requests be submitted separately. 

7. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when OJP provides 

documentation supporting that the SWBPI system has been modified 

to ensure that reimbursements for prosecution services are based on 

the time and effort spent on prosecuting the case rather than the 

number of days the case was open. 

8. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when OJP provides 

documentation supporting that the SWBPI system has been modified 

to request detention data for SWBPI applicants and ensure that 

pre-trial detention reimbursements are based on the actual number of 

days the defendant was detained. 

9. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when OJP provides 

documentation supporting that the SWBPI system has been modified 

to ensure that pre-trial detention reimbursements are based on the 

jurisdiction’s actual daily detention rate. 

10. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when OJP provides 

documentation supporting that new guidance has been issued to 

SWBPI recipients requiring that documentation be maintained to 

support that SWBPI reimbursements, when combined with other 

federal prosecution and pre-trial detention funding, do not exceed 

100 percent of the prosecution and detention costs for SWBPI cases. 

11. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when OJP provides 

documentation supporting that the SWBPI system has been modified 

to better capture other federal prosecution and pre-trial detention 

funding received by SWBPI applicants to ensure that SWBPI recipients 

make the necessary adjustments to SWBPI applications to account for 

other federal funding received for SWBPI cases. 
- 65 - 

12. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when OJP provides 

documentation supporting that the SWBPI system has been modified 

to facilitate the review of SWBPI reimbursement applications to 

identify potential duplicate funding. 

13. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when OJP provides 

documentation supporting that an online training program, specific to 

the SWBPI guidelines, for the participating jurisdictions has been 

developed and implemented.