jurisdiction: US

text: b' Department of Homeland Security\n\n \xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\xef\xbf\xbd\n\n\n\n Idaho\xe2\x80\x99s Management of Homeland Security Grant \n\nProgram Awards For Fiscal Years 2010 Through 2012\n\n\n\n\n\nOIG-14-61 April 2014\n\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n Washington, DC 20528 / www.oig.dhs.gov\n\n\n APR 3 2014\n\n\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\t Brian E. Kamoie\n Assistant Administrator\n Grant Programs Directorate\n Federal Emergency Management Agency\n\nFROM:\t Anne L. Richards\n Assistant Inspector General for Audits\n\nSUBJECT:\t Idaho\xe2\x80\x99s Management of Homeland Security Grant Program\n Awards For Fiscal Years 2010 Through 2012\n\nAttached for your information is our final report, Idaho\xe2\x80\x99s Management of Homeland\nSecurity Grant Program Awards For Fiscal Years 2010 Through 2012. We incorporated\nthe formal comments from the Federal Emergency Management Agency Grant\nPrograms Directorate and the Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security in the final report.\n\nThe report contains four recommendations aimed at improving the State of Idaho\xe2\x80\x99s\nmanagement of Homeland Security Grant Program awards. Your office concurred with\nall four recommendations. Based on information provided in your response to the draft\nreport, OIG considers recommendations #1, #2, and #4 unresolved and open. As\nprescribed by the Department of Homeland Security Directive 077-01, Follow-up and\nResolution for Office of Inspector General Report Recommendations, within 90 days of\nthe date of this memorandum, please provide our office with a written response that\nincludes your (1) agreement or disagreement, (2) corrective action plan, and (3) target\ncompletion date for each recommendation. Also, please include information on\nresponsible parties and any other supporting documentation necessary to inform us\nabout the current status of the recommendation.\n\nOIG considers recommendation #3 resolved and open. Once your office has fully\nimplemented the recommendations, please submit a formal closeout letter to us within\n30 days so that we may close the recommendation(s). The memorandum should be\naccompanied by evidence of completion of agreed-upon corrective actions and of the\ndisposition of any monetary amounts.\n\nPlease email a signed PDF copy of all responses and closeout requests to\nOIGAuditsFollowup@oig.dhs.gov.\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Consistent with our responsibility under the Inspector General Act, we will provide\n copies of our report to appropriate congressional committees with oversight and\n appropriation responsibility over the Department of Homeland Security. We will post\n the report on our website for public dissemination.\n\n Please call me with any questions, or your staff may contact John E. McCoy II, Deputy\n Assistant Inspector General for Audits, at (202) 254-4100.\n\n Attachment\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 2 OIG-14-61\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Table of Contents\n Executive Summary............................................................................................................. 1\n\n\n Background ......................................................................................................................... 2\n\n\n Results of Audit ................................................................................................................... 3\n\n\n Grant Oversight ...................................................................................................... 3\n\n Recommendations ................................................................................................. 7\n\n Management Comments and OIG Analysis ........................................................... 7\n\n\n Measuring Preparedness Improvements ............................................................. 10\n\n Recommendation ................................................................................................. 11\n\n Management Comments and OIG Analysis .......................................................... 11\n\n\n Timely Obligation of Funds ................................................................................... 12\n\n Recommendation ................................................................................................. 13\n\n Management Comments and OIG Analysis ......................................................... 13\n\n\n Contingency Plans for Sustaining Core Capabilities ............................................. 14\n\n\n\n Appendixes\n Appendix A: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology .............................................. 15\n\n Appendix B: FEMA Management Comments to the Draft Report ....................... 18\n\n Appendix C: Idaho Management Comments to the Draft Report ........................ 22\n\n Appendix D: Homeland Security Grant Program Overview .................................. 31\n\n Appendix E: Idaho Area Field Office Regions........................................................ 32\n\n Appendix F: Major Contributors to This Report ................................................... 33\n\n Appendix G: Report Distribution .......................................................................... 34\n\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov OIG-14-61\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Abbreviations\n CFR Code of Federal Regulations\n DHS Department of Homeland Security\n FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency\n FY fiscal year\n hazmat hazardous material\n HSGP Homeland Security Grant Program\n IBHS Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security\n OIG Office of Inspector General\n SHSP State Homeland Security Program\n SPR state preparedness report\n THIRA Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov OIG-14-61 \n\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Executive Summary\n Public Law 110-53, ImplementingfRecommendationsfoffthef9/11fCommissionfActfoff\n 2007, requires the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General to\n audit individual States\xe2\x80\x99 management of State Homeland Security Program and Urban\n Areas Security Initiative grants. This report responds to the reporting requirement for\n Idaho.\n\n The audit objectives were to determine whether Idaho used State Homeland Security\n Program grant funds in accordance with the law, program guidance, state homeland\n security strategies, and other applicable plans. We also addressed the extent to which\n funds awarded enhanced the ability of Idaho grantees to prevent, prepare for, protect\n against, and respond to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other manmade\n disasters. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) awarded Idaho about\n $14.5 million in State Homeland Security Program grants during fiscal years 2010\n through 2012. Idaho does not have a FEMA-designated urban area; therefore, it did not\n receive Urban Areas Security Initiative grant funds.\n\n In most instances, Idaho distributed, administered, and spent State Homeland Security\n Program grant funds in compliance with applicable Federal laws and regulations.\n However, Idaho could improve its grant oversight, its progress measures for\n preparedness improvements, and the timeliness of obligating grant funds.\n\n We made four recommendations to FEMA, which when implemented, should\n strengthen program management, performance, and oversight of Idaho\xe2\x80\x99s State\n Homeland Security Program. FEMA concurred with all four recommendations.\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 1 OIG-14-61\n\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Background\n The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) provides Federal funding through the\n Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) to assist State and local agencies to prevent,\n prepare for, protect against, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism, major\n disasters, and other emergencies. Within DHS, FEMA is responsible for administering\n the HSGP. The HSGP is designed to fund a wide range of preparedness needs, including\n planning, organization, equipment, training, and exercises. The State Homeland Security\n Program (SHSP) falls under the HSGP. Appendix D contains a detailed description of the\n grant programs that constitute the HSGP.\n\n HSGP guidance requires a state administrative agency to administer and manage grant\n funding awarded under the HSGP. In July 2010, the Governor of Idaho designated the\n Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security (IBHS) as the state administrative agency. As such,\n IBHS is responsible for managing the SHSP in accordance with established Federal\n guidelines and for allocating funds to local, regional, and other Idaho government\n entities. Under the leadership of its director, IBHS has four primary branches\xe2\x80\x94Grants,\n Preparedness and Protection, Response and Recovery, and Communications.\n\n During fiscal years (FY) 2010 through 2012, FEMA awarded Idaho SHSP grant funds\n totaling about $14.5 million. The State does not have a FEMA-designated urban area\n and did not receive Urban Areas Security Initiative Grant funds. Idaho subsequently\n issued 180 subgrant awards totaling $11.6 million to local jurisdictions and special\n teams, with the remaining $2.9 million allocated to state projects. Geographically, Idaho\n is the fourteenth largest state and has 44 counties divided across 7 field regions.\n Appendix E contains a map of these counties and regions. Idaho is a major resettlement\n hub for refugees from other countries and has five federally recognized Native American\n tribes.\n\n Figure 1 shows SHSP funding levels for Idaho for FYs 2008 to 2012. SHSP funding\n averaged $4.85 million annually for FYs 2010 through 2012, the period covered by our\n audit. The State received its highest level of SHSP funding in FY 2010; funding declined\n by $3.81 million from FY 2010 to FY 2012. Appendix A contains details on the objectives,\n scope, and methodology of this audit.\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 2 OIG-14-61\n\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Figure 1. SHSP Funding Levels, FYs 2008 through 2012\n\n Idaho SHSP Funding\n $7,000,000\n $6,613,200\n $6,000,000 $6,524,500\n $6,170,000\n $5,000,000 $5,137,205\n\n $4,000,000\n $3,000,000\n $2,000,000 $2,801,316\n\n $1,000,000\n $-\n 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012\n Source: DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG)\n\n\n Results of Audit\n\n In most instances, Idaho used SHSP grant funds in compliance with applicable Federal\n laws and regulations. However, the State did not: 1) provide adequate grant oversight,\n 2) include specific progress measures for preparedness improvements, and 3) obligate\n grants funds within the 45-day requirement.\n\n Grant Oversight\n\n In FYs 2010 through 2012, IBHS did not adequately oversee its subgrantees to\n ensure that they managed their SHSP grants in compliance with Federal\n requirements. IBHS did not have a plan for onsite monitoring to review\n subgrantee grant records to ensure compliance with grant requirements. Also,\n IBHS and its subgrantees did not properly manage equipment inventories and\n property records.\n\n Monitoring\n\n According to the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133, Compliancef\n SupplementfPartf3,fSectionfM,fSubrecipientfMonitoring, dated June 2010, March\n 2011, and June 2012,fgrantees are responsible for monitoring subgrantees\xe2\x80\x99 use\n of Federal awards through reporting, site visits, regular contact, or other means.\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 3 OIG-14-61\n\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Also, according to Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) \xc2\xa713.40 \xe2\x80\x93\n MonitoringfandfReportingfProgramfPerformance,fgrantees are responsible for\n managing the day-to-day operations of grant- and subgrantee-supported\n activities, and for ensuring grant recipients comply with applicable Federal\n requirements and achieve program performance goals.\n\n At the time of our audit, IBHS had conducted two financial monitoring site visits\n of subgrantees to review FY 2010 grant funding and had not conducted any site\n visits related to FYs 2011 and 2012 grant funds. IBHS\xe2\x80\x99 Grants Branch splits\n monitoring responsibilities between the Finance Section, which is responsible for\n onsite monitoring and reviewing quarterly financial and semi-annual reports, and\n the Logistics Section, which is responsible for equipment monitoring. During the\n 3-year performance period of the FY 2010 grant, the Finance Section conducted\n two onsite visits of subgrantees who had received FY 2010 SHSP funds.\n\n According to IBHS officials, although they have \xe2\x80\x9cregular and constant\xe2\x80\x9d contact\n with subgrantees, they have not \xe2\x80\x9cdone well\xe2\x80\x9d in their onsite monitoring to ensure\n that subgrantees are complying with laws and regulations. An IBHS official\n explained that, as of January 2013, their monitoring plan only included SHSP\n grants awarded through FY 2009, and their planning efforts for FYs 2010 to 2012\n grants began in 2013. The officials recognized the need to improve their\n monitoring and had developed a robust onsite monitoring schedule for FYs 2013\n and 2014.\n\n At the time of our audit, the Logistics Section had conducted equipment\n monitoring site visits for 4 of 44 counties to review equipment purchased with FY\n 2010 SHSP grant funds; it had not conducted any site visits for equipment\n purchased with funds from FYs 2011 and 2012. Table 1 shows the value of the\n equipment we examined at the local counties, the Boise Police Department\n Fusion Center, and at hazardous material (hazmat) and bomb squad \xe2\x80\x9cspecial\n teams\xe2\x80\x9d subgrantees. As of June 2013, IBHS had not conducted onsite reviews for\n any of this equipment.\n\n Without adequate financial and equipment monitoring of subgrantees, IBHS\n cannot be assured that grant funds are being used as intended.\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 4 OIG-14-61\n\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Table 1. Total Value of OIG-reviewed Subgrantee Equipment from FYs 2010-2012* \n\n Subgrantee Value of IBHS Site Visits\n Equipment\n Sample\n Ada County $99,256.50 None\n Bannock County $104,086.26 None\n Bonneville County $121,522.69 None\n Canyon County $586,826.37 None\n Kootenai County $394,808.90 None\n Twin Falls County $78,367.96 None\n Region 3 Bomb Squad $11,884.49 None\n Region 3 Hazmat $6,432.01 None\n Region 4 Bomb Squad $36,324.49 None\n Region 7 Bomb Squad $17,775.50 None\n Subtotal Local County Jurisdictions and $1,457,285.17 None\n Special Teams\n Boise Police Department Fusion Center $40,950.23 None\n FY 2010 to 2012 Total $1,498,235.40\n Source: DHS OIG\n *Although IBHS conducted four site visits of equipment purchased with FY 2010 funds, this equipment was\n not included in our sample because those sites did not meet our selection criteria.\n\n\n Subgrantee Procurements\n\n According to 44 CFR \xc2\xa713.36 \xe2\x80\x93 Procurement and 44 CFR \xc2\xa713.42 \xe2\x80\x93 Retentionfandf\n accessfrequirementsfforfrecords, grantees and subgrantees are required to\n maintain records detailing the significant history of a procurement; and all grant\n financial and programmatic records should be maintained for at least 3 years\n after the end of the grant period.\n\n Idaho did not ensure that subgrantees maintained adequate documentation\n supporting the procurement of equipment and services purchased with grant\n funds. Local jurisdictions typically followed the IdahofCode Title 67 Chapter 28,\n PurchasingfbyfPoliticalfSubdivisions,ffor procurement procedures. IBHS\xe2\x80\x99 Grants\n Branch relied on local jurisdictions to follow applicable procurement procedures\n when selecting vendors for grant purchases. Prior to approving purchases, IBHS\n did not verify that subgrantees followed appropriate procurement procedures,\n nor did it monitor subgrantees in a timely manner to ensure that, pursuant to\n Federal regulations, they maintained and retained adequate procurement\n records. At the local level, subgrantee grant coordinators were not fully aware of\n the CFR requirement to maintain adequate historical supporting documentation\n for procurements and did not know how this requirement differed from state\n procurement requirements. As a result, subgrantees typically followed the state\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 5 OIG-14-61\n\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n code for procurement record retention. For example, a sole source contract was\n not fully documented because negotiations over the phone were not\n documented.\n\n Without verifying that subgrantees maintain proper procurement records, the\n State cannot guarantee that subgrantees are obtaining the best value for\n equipment and services purchased.\n\n Inventory Management\n\n According to 44 CFR \xc2\xa713.32 \xef\xbf\xbd Equipment, for equipment acquired with grant\n funds, the state and its subgrantees must maintain property records that include\n the property\xe2\x80\x99s description, identification number, source of the property,\n titleholder, acquisition date, cost including percentage of Federal participation,\n location, use and condition, and ultimate disposition. Every 2 years, a physical\n inventory of the property must be taken and the results reconciled with property\n records.\n\n We reviewed a sample of equipment property records maintained by IBHS and\n determined that it did not always comply with property record requirements.\n IBHS developed a process to track all the grant-funded equipment purchases,\n which includes a searchable database and is considered a best practice by FEMA\n and IBHS. However, the database does not include all required property record\n elements. For example, not all records included a unique identification number,\n such as a serial number. According to the Logistics Division, this sometimes\n occurred because the Accounting Department did not always forward serial\n numbers from vendor invoices to the Logistics Division, which is responsible for\n the equipment tracking database. The condition and use of the property and its\n ultimate disposition were also missing from the database. Finally, information on\n the location of equipment was not always specific.\n\n Subgrantees also did not comply with property record and inventory\n requirements in the CFR. Specifically, property records maintained by the\n subgrantees were missing some required information, and only two of the\n subgrantees met the requirement to conduct a physical inventory of equipment\n every 2 years.fAccording to most of the subgrantees we visited, they were not\n aware of the CFR property record requirements, although the regulation is\n included in IBHS\xe2\x80\x99 award letter to subgrantees. Some of the subgrantees also said\n they were not aware that they needed to keep an inventory of equipment\n purchased with SHSP funds.\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 6 OIG-14-61\n\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n\n IBHS also did not adequately monitor the subgrantees to ensure they maintained\n complete property records and conducted required physical inventories of\n equipment purchased with SHSP grant funds from FYs 2010 through 2012. IBHS\n recently developed an equipment monitoring plan to monitor all 44 counties\n over 3 years, but the plan does not include a review of subgrantee inventory\n records. The Finance Section monitors inventory records during site visits.\n\n Without compliance with property record and inventory requirements, the State\n cannot ensure that assets procured with grant funds are properly safeguarded,\n are in good condition, and are available when needed to prevent, prepare for,\n protect against, and respond to natural and manmade disasters.\n\n Recommendations\n\n We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs Directorate\n require IBHS to:\n\n Recommendation #1:\n\n Develop a regular monitoring plan and schedule to ensure that subgrantees\n comply with Federal requirements for maintaining grant records.\n\n Recommendation #2:\n\n Evaluate and update current methods used to record state and subgrantee\n equipment purchases to ensure property records include all federally required\n data elements and ensure that physical inventories of equipment are conducted\n pursuant to Federal regulations.\n\n Management Comments and OIG Analysis\n\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s and IBHS\xe2\x80\x99 Responses to Recommendation #1:\n FEMA and IBHS concurred with recommendation #1. However, IBHS did not\n agree with our assessment that IBHS did not adequately monitor subgrantees in\n FYs 2011 and 2012. Because there were few or no expenditures during these\n fiscal years, IBHS deemed it more cost effective to monitor the grants during the\n periods when funds were actively obligated. IBHS included the list of subgrantee\n monitoring visits completed in 2013 and the monitoring schedule for 2014.\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 7 OIG-14-61\n\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n According to IBHS, under the more aggressive 2014 schedule, it will monitor\n subgrantees every 2 years.\n\n FEMA agreed to require IBHS to submit a monitoring plan that ensures\n subgrantee compliance with Federal requirements for maintaining grant records\n and includes IBHS\xe2\x80\x99 rationale for selecting subgrantees for desk reviews and site\n visits. FEMA requested that the recommendation status be changed to resolved\n and open, with an estimated completion date of September 30, 2014.\n\n OIG Analysis:\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s and IBHS\xe2\x80\x99 proposed actions meet the intent of recommendation #1, but\n the recommendation will remain unresolved and open pending our review of the\n following FEMA-provided documents: 1) a detailed monitoring plan with\n milestone dates for desk reviews and site visits, 2) a documented methodology\n used to select subgrantees for monitoring, and 3) updated policy and procedures\n with effective dates for implemented actions.\n\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s and IBHS\xe2\x80\x99 Responses to Recommendation #2:\n FEMA concurred with recommendation #2; IBHS did not concur. IBHS asserted\n that our finding regarding property records was based on the equipment\n tracking database (Equipment Tracker), which tracks HSGP subgrantee\n equipment purchases. According to IBHS, Equipment Tracker was not designed\n or intended to replace the State Fixed Assets System, which IBHS believes meets\n the CFR requirements, or subgrantees\xe2\x80\x99 inventory procedures. IBHS also noted\n that we incorrectly referenced the IdahofPurchasingfGuide, which includes\n regulations for state purchases, not for purchases made by local jurisdictions;\n IBHS identified Title 67, Chapter 28 of the IdahofCode as the correct reference.\n According to IBHS, the Federal and state regulatory guidance it provides\n subgrantees in application packages is sufficient, and it is the subgrantees\xe2\x80\x99\n responsibility to determine which requirements to follow for their procurement\n procedures. Nevertheless, IBHS has included additional checks in its monitoring\n procedures to ensure subgrantee procurement records comply with the CFR.\n\n FEMA will require IBHS to submit an updated methodology for recording state\n and subgrantee purchases to ensure property records include all federally\n required data elements and to ensure it conducts physical inventories of\n equipment, pursuant to Federal regulations. FEMA requested that the\n recommendation status be changed to resolved and open, with an estimated\n completion date of September 30, 2014.\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 8 OIG-14-61\n\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n OIG Analysis:\n The actions proposed by FEMA and IBHS partially meet the intent of\n recommendation #2. Specifically, FEMA proposed actions to address inventory\n and property record deficiencies; however, it did not identify actions to correct\n deficiencies related to subgrantee procurements.\n\n At the time of our audit, IBHS informed us that Equipment Tracker was the\n central database it used to track all grant-related equipment purchases and\n other pertinent information. Therefore, we used this database to determine\n whether IBHS met the requirements for equipment purchased with grant funds.\n We understood that the Idaho Fixed Assets System was used only to track\n information on state purchases. We reviewed state equipment purchased with\n grant funds and did not identify any deficiencies. Because the CFR requires\n maintenance of adequate property records for all equipment purchased with\n grant funds, as the grantee, IBHS is responsible for ensuring that both the State\n and its subgrantees meet this requirement.\n\n The IdahofCode is now included in the report as the correct reference for\n purchases by local jurisdictions.\n\n Although IBHS informs its subgrantees of the codified requirements in\n application packages, at several subgrantee sites we reviewed, the grant\n coordinators did not fully understand the differences between the IdahofCode\n and CFR requirements for maintaining and retaining procurement records. As a\n result, subgrantees typically followed state requirements for retaining these\n records. As the grantee, Idaho is responsible for ensuring that subgrantees\n understand how to correctly apply Federal and state regulations. The State must\n also ensure that subgrantee procurement records include adequate historical\n documentation and comply with CFR requirements through regular and\n consistent monitoring of subgrantee activities.\n\n This recommendation will remain unresolved and open until FEMA provides us\n with IBHS\xe2\x80\x99 documented methodology, pursuant to Federal regulations, to 1)\n record, track, and inventory SHSP equipment purchases and 2) monitor and\n review subgrantee procurement activities and records for compliance.\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 9 OIG-14-61\n\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Measuring Preparedness Improvements\n\n\n Neither IBHS\xe2\x80\x99 state homeland security strategies nor its Threat and Hazard\n Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) included specific measures to track\n progress toward achieving its preparedness objectives. Without goals and\n objectives against which it can measure progress, IBHS will have difficulty\n evaluating the effect of grant expenditures on the State\xe2\x80\x99s preparedness and\n emergency response capabilities.\n\n For FYs 2010 through 2012, IBHS prepared state homeland security strategies\n that aligned with the national priorities and mission areas in DHS\xe2\x80\x99fStatefandf\n UrbanfAreafHomelandfSecurityfStrategyfGuidancefonfAligningfStrategiesfwithfthef\n NationalfPreparednessfGoalf(guidance), dated July 2005. According to the\n guidance, strategies should also include objectives that set tangible and\n measurable target levels of performance over time, against which actual\n achievement can be compared. The state strategies did not include measurable\n target levels of performance or goals and objectives with performance measures\n to track progress. Title 44 CFR \xc2\xa7 13.40 (a) also requires monitoring of grant\n activities to ensure performance goals are achieved. IBHS officials acknowledged\n that the state strategies did not include specific measures, but noted that they\n did not actively use the current state strategy. They also said that, with FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s\n development of the THIRA in FY 2012, they placed less emphasis on the strategy.\n\n In FY 2012, as required by FEMA, IBHS completed a THIRA to identify risk areas\n and assess overall capability gaps, as well as identify improvements resulting\n from grant-funded projects. According to FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s evaluation of IBHS\xe2\x80\x99 THIRA, the\n State needs to include more quantifiable measures for core capabilities and\n capability targets, which can be compared to actual achievements. Specifically,\n FEMA noted that the \xe2\x80\x9cdesired outcomes\xe2\x80\x9d in Idaho\xe2\x80\x99s THIRAfdo not always include\n measurable or quantitative descriptors. FEMA further commented that \xe2\x80\x9cterms\n such as, \xe2\x80\x98coordinate,\xe2\x80\x99 \xe2\x80\x98ensure,\xe2\x80\x99 \xe2\x80\x98establish,\xe2\x80\x99 and \xe2\x80\x98stabilize\xe2\x80\x99 all have subjective\n definitions that should be clarified and/or quantified.\xe2\x80\x9d Annually, the results of\n the THIRA are captured and prioritized in the state preparedness report (SPR)\n along with strategy goals to mitigate gaps. The SPR will also capture the State\xe2\x80\x99s\n progress toward achieving goals through grant funded investments.\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 10 OIG-14-61\n\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Recommendation\n\n We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs Directorate\n require IBHS to:\n\n Recommendation #3:\n\n Ensure that the state preparedness report contains measurable and quantifiable\n outcomes.\n\n Management Comments and OIG Analysis\n\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Response to Recommendation #3:\n FEMA concurred with recommendation #3. FEMA requested that the\n recommendation refer to the SPR rather than the THIRA as we had originally\n written because the SPR is the appropriate document to identify gaps in\n capabilities, prioritize capabilities, and chart the strategy to fill the gaps. On\n August 29, 2013, FEMA released a consistent methodology for determining risks\n in the ComprehensivefPreparednessfGuidef201:fThreatfandfHazardfIdentificationf\n andfRiskfAssessmentf(THIRA)fGuidef(CPG-201)fSecondfEdition. The guide\n describes a four-step process that jurisdictions can use to achieve desired\n outcomes and capability targets for each core capability. This approach allows a\n jurisdiction to establish its own capability targets based on the risks it faces. The\n next step ties investment justifications submitted in the grant application directly\n to identified needs and shortfalls. Grantees must identify and prioritize the core\n capability or capabilities, as well as capability gaps noted in the SPR, that the\n investment intends to address. They must also identify the specific outcome(s) of\n the investment. Taken together, the THIRA and the SPR identify capability needs\n and gaps, as well as show grantees\xe2\x80\x99 progress in closing those gaps. FEMA reports\n the results of the capability assessments annually in the NationalfPreparednessf\n Report. Based on this information, FEMA requested that this recommendation\n be resolved and closed.\n\n IBHS\xe2\x80\x99 Response to Recommendation #3:\n IBHS concurred with recommendation #3. The recommendation for this finding\n is based on the 2012 IBHS THIRA, which was the first year state administrative\n agencies were required to produce this document. According to IBHS, it was\n refining the 2013 THIRA and would include measurable and quantifiable metrics\n in the updated capability target statements. IBHS has now completed and\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 11 OIG-14-61\n\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n documented targets that set tangible and measurable target levels of\n performance in the 2013 THIRA, the 2014 IBHS strategic plan, and the 2013 SPR.\n\n OIG Analysis:\n As stated in our report, neither IBHS\xe2\x80\x99 state homeland security strategies nor its\n THIRA included specific measures to track progress toward achieving its\n preparedness objectives. The scope of the audit was for FYs 2010 through 2012\n and did not include a review of the draft 2013 THIRA. Also, we were to\n determine whether the State developed an appropriate system to measure\n improvements in preparedness as a result of the grants.\n\n According to FEMA, use of the THIRA, the SPR, and investment justifications\n satisfies the intent of this recommendation and creates a methodology for\n measuring progress toward preparedness. We agree that the SPR is intended to\n measure progress toward closing capability gaps by identifying these gaps,\n prioritizing capabilities, and charting a strategy to filling the gaps.\n\n OIG has revised recommendation #3 as FEMA requested.\n\n The actions proposed by FEMA and IBHS meet the intent of recommendation #3.\n This recommendation will be considered resolved and open pending review of\n IBHS\xe2\x80\x99 2013 SPR.\n\n Timely Obligation of Funds\n\n IBHS did not obligate grant funds on a timely basis for the 11 subgrantees\n reviewed. For FYs 2010 through 2012, the State did not obligate any SHSP funds\n to subgrantees within 45 days of receipt of funds, as required by FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s grant\n guidance. According to the guidance, there are four requirements for obligating\n grant funds:\n\n \xef\xbf\xbd\t There must be some action to establish a firm commitment on the part of\n the awarding entity;\n \xef\xbf\xbd\t The action must be unconditional on the part of the awarding entity (i.e.,\n no contingencies for availability of funds);\n \xef\xbf\xbd\t There must be documentary evidence of the commitment; and\n \xef\xbf\xbd\t The award terms must be communicated to the official grantee.\n\n IBHS did not meet the grant requirements because of its lengthy obligation and\n approval process. It fully obligated grant funds an average of 204 days after the\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 12 \t OIG-14-61\n\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n 45-day requirement in FY 2010, 215 days in FY 2011, and 191 days in FY 2012.\n According to IBHS officials, they could not meet the 45-day requirement because\n of state and local processes. For example, once the award is received from\n FEMA, IBHS calculates its allocations for the various subgrantees, determines\n projects, and sets up the accounting structure, before sending subgrantee award\n packages. Also, at the local level, subgrantees typically need approval from their\n respective boards of commissioners, which in some instances can take more\n than 45 days. Untimely obligation of grant funds reduces the amount of time to\n use the funds, which could result in subgrantees needing to request grant\n extensions to complete projects or could lead to a reduction or termination of\n funding granted to the State.\n\n Recommendation\n\n We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs Directorate\n require IBHS to:\n\n Recommendation #4:\n\n Review and update its obligation and approval process to identify ways to\n streamline the process to work toward attaining the goal of obligating the funds\n to subgrantees within 45 days.\n\n Management Comments and OIG Analysis\n\n FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s and IBHS\xe2\x80\x99 Responses to Recommendation #4: \n\n FEMA concurred with recommendation #4. IBHS did not concur with this \n\n recommendation because it believes it met the 45-day requirement by sending \n\n application and award packages to subgrantees. \n\n\n FEMA will require IBHS to submit an obligation and approval process that\n streamlines the award process to ensure IBHS obligates funds within 45 days.\n FEMA requested that this recommendation be changed to resolved and open,\n with an estimated completion date of September 30, 2014.\n\n OIG Analysis:\n The action proposed by FEMA appears to meet the intent of recommendation\n #4. This recommendation will remain unresolved and open until we have\n reviewed IBHS\xe2\x80\x99 submission to FEMA on streamlining its award process to meet\n the 45-day requirement.\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 13 OIG-14-61\n\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n\n Contingency Plans for Sustaining Core Capabilities \n\n\n In our draft report, we recommended that the FEMA Assistant Administrator,\n Grant Programs Directorate encourage IBHS to develop and implement a\n comprehensive contingency plan to sustain and/or prioritize capabilities should\n Federal grant funds continue to be reduced or eliminated. Neither FEMA nor\n IBHS concurred with the recommendation.\n\n Since FY 2012, FEMA has required HSGP grantees to prioritize sustaining existing\n capabilities over using grant funding to build new capabilities. FEMA requires\n grantees to substantiate this prioritization in their investment justifications and\n Biannual Strategy Implementation Reports. Although FEMA does not have the\n legal authority to require states to maintain and sustain capabilities in the\n absence of Federal grant funding, it uses administrative and policy procedures to\n ensure that grantees sustain grant-funded capabilities.\n\n With less funding available from Federal sources, the State will need to enhance\n its contingency planning to prioritize its grant-funded core capabilities and\n identify alternative sources to fund and sustain these investments. Without a\n contingency plan to sustain its preparedness capabilities, in the event of reduced\n Federal funding, the State\xe2\x80\x99s ability to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond\n to, and recover from terrorist attacks and major disasters may be diminished.\n\n We recognize that FEMA does not have the statutory authority to require IBHS to\n develop and implement a comprehensive contingency plan. As a result, we have\n withdrawn the recommendation and adjusted the Executive Summary and\n Results of Audit sections accordingly.\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 14 OIG-14-61\n\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Appendix A\n Objectives, Scope, and Methodology\n The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) was\n established by the HomelandfSecurityfActfoff2002 (Public Law 107-296) by amendment\n to the InspectorfGeneralfActfoff1978. This is one of a series of audit, inspection, and\n special reports prepared as part of our oversight responsibilities to promote economy,\n efficiency, and effectiveness within the Department.\n\n Public Law 110-53, ImplementingfRecommendationsfoffthef9/11fCommissionfActfoff\n 2007, as amended, requires DHS OIG to audit individual states\xe2\x80\x99 management of State\n Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative grants. This report\n responds to the reporting requirement for the State of Idaho.\n\n The objectives of the audit were to determine whether Idaho used State Homeland\n Security Program grant funds in accordance with the law, program guidance, and state\n homeland security strategies, and other applicable plans. We also addressed the extent\n to which funds awarded enhanced the ability of Idaho grantees to prevent, prepare for,\n protect against, and respond to natural disasters, acts of terrorism and other manmade\n disasters.\n\n Together, HSGP and its five interrelated grant programs fund a range of preparedness\n activities, including planning, organization, equipment purchase, training, exercises, and\n management and administration costs. Only SHSP funding and equipment and programs\n supported by SHSP grant funding were reviewed for compliance.\n\n The scope of this audit included the plans developed by the State to improve\n preparedness and response to all types of hazards, as well as the goals and objectives in\n those plans; the measurement of progress toward the goals, and assessments of\n performance improvement resulting from this measurement. Table 2 shows the funding\n scope for the audit, which included SHSP grant awards for FYs 2010, 2011, and 2012.\n\n Table 2. The State of Idaho\xe2\x80\x99s SHSP Awards (FYs 2010 through 2012)\n Grant Program FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Total\n State Homeland Security $6,613,200.00 $5,137,205.00 $2,801,316.00 $14,551,721.00\n Program\n Source: DHS OIG analysis of FEMA data\n\n The audit methodology included work at FEMA headquarters, state offices in Idaho, and\n various subgrantee locations in Idaho. Table 3 shows the value of the subgrantee grant\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 15 OIG-14-61\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n awards from our sample selection. At each location, we interviewed responsible officials\n and reviewed documentation supporting state and subgrantee management of grant\n funds.\n\n Table 3. Value of FY 2010 to FY 2012 Subgrantee Awards Reviewed\n Subgrantee Total Value of Grant Awards\n Ada County $1,960,398.28\n Bannock County $460,647.00\n Bonneville County $559,813.89\n Canyon County $975,192.92\n Kootenai County $736,310.20\n City of Twin Falls $437,602.59\n Boise Police Department Fusion Center $124,500.00\n Region 3 Bomb Squad $76,000.00\n Region 3 Hazmat $78,000.00\n Region 4 Bomb Squad $60,000.00\n Region 7 Bomb Squad $76,000.00\n Total $5,544,464.88\n Source: DHS OIG\n\n We obtained all Idaho subgrantee grants awarded during FYs 2010 through 2012, which\n totaled $14.5 million. We validated the total subgrantee awards by reviewing Idaho\xe2\x80\x99s\n grant allocation risk methodology for making subgrantee awards. Based on our review,\n we determined that the subgrantee awards were consistent with their methodology;\n therefore, we deemed the data reliable.\n\n We judgmentally selected a sample of 11 subgrantees with total awards of $5.5 million\n representing about 38 percent of the total grant dollars ($14.5 million) awarded to\n Idaho. We determined our sample based on the total expenditures reported by Idaho as\n of mid-May 2013. We considered sites that were in close proximity to one another due\n to budget, timing constraints, and travel restrictions. For each sample, we reviewed\n expenditures to determine whether these costs were supported and allowable under\n the grants. To observe and verify its existence at sample subgrantee sites, we also\n reviewed a judgmental sample of equipment procured with grant funds, valued at\n approximately $1.5 million for subgrantees and approximately $118,000 for IBHS.\n\n We conducted this performance audit between April 2013 and September 2013\n pursuant to the InspectorfGeneralfActfoff1978, as amended, and according to generally\n accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 16 OIG-14-61\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable\n basis for our findings and conclusions based upon our audit objectives. We believe that\n the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions\n based upon our audit objectives.\n f\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 17 OIG-14-61\n\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Appendix B\n FEMA Management Comments to the Draft Report\n 1.! ."1. flt\xe2\x80\xa2Jlllr-frr\xe2\x80\xa2<\'nt ,~r llomehmd Se!f..\'udt.,-\n vv-ashinglOt\'l. DC 2e472.\n\n\n\n\n FEMA\n JAN 2 4 2014\n\n\n MEMORANDUM FOR: Anne L. Richard\n Assistant Inspector General for Audits\n Office of Inspector Gcncml (OIG)\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n FROM: David J. Kaufman\n Associate Adminis trator f<n\n Policy, Program Analysis and International At)\'airs\n\n SUBJECT: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Response to\n OIG Draft Report: "Idaho\'s Manag..:mcnt of Homeland Security\n Grant Progrnm Awards For Fiscal Years 2010 rhrough 2012" 010\n Project No. 13-13 8-A UD-FEMA\n\n\n Thank you tor the opportunity to comment on OlG Draft Report, \';Idaho\'s Management of\n Homeland Security Grant Program AwMds For Fiscal Years 2010 Through 2012" OIG Project\n No. 13-138-AL\'D-FEMA. The findings in the report will be used to strengthen the effectiveness\n and eftlcieucy oCbuw w..: oxc>:uk and measure our program. We reGognize the need to continue\n to improve the process, including addressing the recommendations mised in this report. The\n f(lllowing are our l<:~punsc lu the Jiv..: (5) recommendations for implementation, of which, FEMA\n concurs with recommendations 1 through 4 (UlC non-concur with recommendation 5.\n\n Recommendntion ffl: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs\n Direcluralc require Idaho Bureau of Homel3nd Security (IBHS) to develop a regular monitoring\n plan and schedule to ensure that sub grantees comply with Federal requirements for maintaining\n grllnt records\n\n Response: {:nncur. FF.MA will require IBHS to submit a monitoring plan that ensures\n subgrantces comply with Federal requirements for maintaining grant records. FEMA will ensure\n lhallhis plan includes a rntionale hy which lRHS choo~es its desk review and site visit\n recipients.\n\n FEMA requests this t]nding be changed to Resolved and Open.\n\n Estimated Completion Date (ECD): September 30, 2014\n\n\n\n\n W\\\\\'W_fcltJa_guv\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 18 OIG-14-61\n\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Recommendation #2: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator. Gran t Prognnns\n Directorate require TBHS to evaluate and update current methods used to reeord Stare and\n subr:,>nmtee equipment purchases to ensure propelty records include all federally required data\n elements and ensure 1hat physical inventories of equipment arc conducted pursuant to Federal\n regulations.\n\n Response: Concur. FEMA wi ll require IBHS to submi t an updated methodology by which it\n records state and subgrantee purchases to ensure property records include aU federally required\n data c l ement~ and ensure that physical inventories of equipment arc conducted pursuant to\n Federal regulations.\n\n FEN\'v \\ requests this finding be changed to Resolved and Open.\n\n Estimated Completion Date (ECD): September 30. 20L4\n\n Recommendation #3: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs\n Directorate require IBHS to ensure that the Threat and Ha7.ard ldentification and Risk\n Assessment (THLRA) contains measurable and quantifiable outcomes.\n\n Response: Concur. FEMi\\ requests a technical correction to the recommendation to read as\n follows:\n\n "We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs Directorate require\n !BHS to ensure that the State Preparedness Report contains measurable and quantitiable\n outcomes\'\'\n\n As highlighted in the discussion below, FEMA believes that the State Preparedness Report {SPR)\n is the appwpriatc document tor grantees to identify gaps in capabil ities and to prioritize\n capabilities and chart the strategy for fi lling those gaps.\n\n The integrated preparedness system has its basis in the strategic plan and planning process. As\n part of this plan and process, OIG has reconuucnded that FEMA help states, territories and urban\n areas establish measurable goals and objectives that will enahle them to systematically measure\n improvements in tirst responder capabiljties and statewide preparedness. FEMA has established\n and implemented a system to do exactly that, as described below.\n\n Measuring Grant Effectiveness\n As part of the National Preparedness System, FEMA has developed and is implementing\n performance assessments that measure progress toward achieving the Goal. FEMA \'s strategy is\n to base assessments on the principles that the Nation needs tu understand existing risks, use those\n risks to determine required capabilities, asse~s cummt eapability levels against those\n requirements, and track its progress in closing identified capability gaps.\n\n On August 29, 2013, FEMA rclca:;cd a consistent methodology for determining ri sks in 1he\n Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 20 I : Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment\n (THIRA) Guide (CPG-20 1) Second Edition. CPG-201 details a four-step process jurisdictions\n\n\n 2\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 19 OIG-14-61\n\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n can usc to achieve desired outcomes and capability targets for each of the core capabilities. Th1s\n approach allows a jurisdiction to establish its own capability targets based on the risks it fv.ccs.\n\n On December) i , 2012, states, territories, and major urban areas receiving Homeland Secmity\n Grant Program (IISGP) funds were required to submit their TJ!IRAs to fEMA. Once each\n jurisdiction has determined capability targets through the THIRA process, it estimates its current\n capability levels against those targets. Also in 2012, states and territories were required to\n ~ubmit SPR.s to FEMA. The THIRA and SPR proccssc~ arc ~calabk to allow sub-jurisdictions,\n sub-grantees and subject matter experts to provide input to the state or territory. Taken together,\n the THIRA results and the SPR identify capabil.ity needs and gaps. The THIRA and SPR results\n h1ghlight gaps in capability and the progress of gramees in closing those gaps over time. FE\\1A\n reports the results of the capability assessments annually in the National Preparedness Report\n (NPR).\n\n Sustaining, Building and Delivering Capl!bilities\n Having estimated capability requirements, the next component of the National Preparedness\n System is to build and sustain capabilities. This step tics grant investments directly to needs and\n shortfalls. Grantees address documented capability requirements and gaps in their b\'l\'ant\n applications. In the investment justifications (IJ) submitted in the grant application, grantees\n must spccilkally identity the core capabllity or capabilities, the priority of the core capability as\n weH as the capability gaps noted in their SPR that investment intends to address. In addition, the\n grantee must identify the specific outcome(s) that the investment \\vill yield. FEMA verities\n completion of the investment/project through its programmatic monitoring and spending on the\n investment through the Biannual Strategy Implementation Report (BSIR), also a tool used in the\n monitoring process. Since the period of performance for the Homeland Security Grant Program\n is two years, a time limit is set for completion of the project once it is timded.\n\n FEMA addressed the OIG recommendation for States to establish SMART goals and objectives\n that will enable States and Territories to systematically measure improvements in first responder\n capabilities and statewide preparedness by requiring states tn use a set of tools including the\n THIRA, SPR, P.nd lJs. Strategy updates are encouraged but not required as the TH!RA, SPR and\n IJ methodology provide the goals and assessment of progress against those goals.\n\n Based on this intormation, FEMA requests this recommendation be resolved and closed.\n\n\n Rc(ommendation #4: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs\n Directorate require IRHS to review and update its obligation and approval process to identify\n ways to streamline the process to work toward attaining the goal of obligating the funds to\n subgrantecs within 45 days.\n\n Response: Coneur. FEMA will require IBHS to submit an obligation and approval process to\n streamline the avvarding process that ensures that IBHS obligates funds within 45 days.\n\n FEMA requests this finding be changed to Resolved and Open.\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 20 OIG-14-61\n\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Estimated Completion Date (ECD): Septemhc;;r 30, 2014\n\n Recommendation #5: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs\n Directorate require IBHS to consider developing and implementing a comprehensive\n contingency plan to sustain and/or prioritize capabilities should Federal grant funds continue to\n be reduced or eliminated.\n\n Response: Non-Concur. FEMA docs not concur with this recommendation as it does not have\n the legal authority to require sustainment in the event a State cannot achicYe it as a condition on\n the receipt ofJ-ISCW grant tunding.\n\n Congress statutorily created the lJAS! and SHSP grant programs in Title XX of the Homeland\n Security Act of 2002, as amended. As t:nactcd by Congre~s, the UASJ and SHSP programs do\n not reqtlire state and local level grant recipients to provide any cost sharing or cost matching\n contributions, nut are grant recipients ~tatutorily required to sustain and maintain grant funded\n projects for any length of time beyond the grant\'s pt,"\'\'iod of performance. The result is that these\n programs, as designed by Congress, allow grantees to achieve target capabilities using I 00%\n federal funding, and require grantees to sustain and maintain those capabilities only during the\n grant\'s period of performance. FEMA does not have the statutory authority under these\n programs to require grantees to sustain grant funded projects beyond the grant\'s period of\n performance as a condition of applying for or receiving SHSP or UASI award funding.\n\n Notwithstanding the lack of legal authority to require States and other I:ISGP grant recipients to\n maintain and sustain capabilities in the absence of continuing federal grant funding, since FY\n 2012. f EMA has required that HSGP grantees prioritize sustainment of existing capabilities over\n utilizing grant funding to build new capabilities and requires that grantees supply information\n substantiating this prioritization in their imestmcntjustifications and Ria.nnual Strategy\n Implementation RcpOtis (BSIR). Despite the lack of legal authority to require States to maintain\n and sustain capabilities in the absence offederal grant funding ..FEMA has used administrative\n and policy meclk\'lnisms to ensure that grant fumku (.;llpabilitics are sustained to the extent that\n grant fimding is available.\n\n As a result of the actions taken by FEMA to ensure tlmt grantees utilize available funding to\n sustain and maintain existing capabilities over building new capabilities inc luding fusion centers,\n FEMA requests this recommendation be closed.\n\n Again, we thank you tor the work that you and your team did to inform us of measures we can\n take to enhance the program\' s overall effectiveness. We look forward to OIG\'s tina( report tor\n "Idaho\'s Management ofllomcland Security Grant Program Awards For Fiscal Years 2010\n \'Ibrough 2012" OIG Project No. 13-138-AF D-FEMA. Please direct any questions regarding this\n response to Gary McKeon, FEMA\'s Chief Audit Liaiso(\\ at 202-646-1308.\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 21 OIG-14-61\n\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Appendix C\n Idaho Management Comments to the Draft Report\n\n STATE OF IDAHO\n BUREAU OF HOMELAND SECURITY\n 40<40 W . GUARD STREET, BLDG. GOO\n BOISE, IDAHO 83705- 5004\n\n\n C.L. nBUTCH" OTTER Maj Gen GARY L. SAYLER Col BRAD RJCHY\n GOVERNOR ADJUTANT GENERAL DIRECTOR\n\n\n\n January 13,2014\n\n\n\n Ms. Anne L. Richards\n Assistant Inspector Geneml for Audits\n Office oflnspectnr General, Department of Homeland Security\n Washington, DC 20528\n\n Response to Idaho \'s Management of!lome/and Security Gran/ Program A wards fur Fiscal\n Years 2010 through 2012\n\n Dear Ms. Richards:\n\n The Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security (BHS) appreciates the review of its processes and\n procedures, in our shared tmdeavor to ensure grant funds are used in their intended manner. The\n protection of Idaho citizens and the resiliency of our State are always our paramount concern.\n We also pride ourselves in the proper and transparent financial management of grant funding.\n After reviewing Idaho \'s Management ofHomeland Security Grant Program Awards for Fiscal\n Years 2010 through 2012, we have no reservation in publicly releasing this document upon\n inclusion of the following responses to the listed recommendations.\n\n Recommendation #1\n BHS concurs with Recommendation #1 in that regular monitoring plans and schedules are\n important instruments for ensuring grant compliance. We do however take issue with the\n statement that BHS bad not conducted any site visits related to FY 2011 and 2012. At the time\n of the audit, no expenditures had been made out of FY 2012 funding and few funds had been\n expended out ofFY 2011 . As such, there was little or nothing to monitor at that point in the\n grant performance period. Responsible, pertinent and cost-effective monitoring should take\n place during the execution period ofthe grant when funds are being actively obligated. Attached\n is the monitoring completed in calendar year 20 13, along with the scheduled subgrantee\n monitoring for calendar year 2014. This schedule provides for monitoring of subgnmtees every\n two years and provides for a more aggressive monitoring process going forward.\n\n Recommendation #2\n BHS does not concur with Reconunendation #2. The audit repon states that BHS did not always\n comply with property record requirements. This was based upon audit review of the equipment\n tracking database (Equipment Tracker). This equipment tracker was not designed for or intended\n to replace any existing inventory traclcing programs or procedures of subgrantees or BHS.\n Ratl!er, it was designed to identify equipment purchased with State Homeland Security Grant\n\n\n Phone: (208) 422 30<40 \xe2\x80\xa2 Fo x: (206) 422\xc2\xb73044 \xe2\x80\xa2 24- tlour Emergency Not>fication: (208) 846 -7610\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 22 OIG-14-61\n\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Ms. Anne L. Richards\n January 13, 2014\n Page2\n\n\n Program (HSGP) funds in order to ensure the eligibility of equipment purchases and track the\n investment areas that were enhanced with grant funded equipment.\n\n BHS currently, and at the time of the audit, uses the State ofldaho Fixed Asset System as the\n system of record to track all state ofldaho equipment. This system meets all federal\n requirements for tracking of grant funded equipment. This system was pointed out to auditors.\n However, the report ignores its capabilities and instead focused on the equipment eligibility\n management system.\n\n The audit report incorrectly identifies subgrantee purchasing requirements. Idaho Code Title 67\n Chapter 28 controls the procurement procedures oflocal units of government and subgrantecs\n are not required to follow the Idaho Division of Purchasing, Purchasing Reference Guide. The\n BHS relationship with HSGP subgrantees is contractual, from one autonomous unit of\n government to another. BHS makes the procurement requirements codified in the CFR known to\n subgrantee local units of government in the HSGP application package. It is then the\n responsibility of subgrantees to follow the applicable procurement procedures. Recommendation\n #2 fails to appreciate the separation of duties between state and local units of government.\n However, IBHS has added additional checks in its monitoring process to ensure sub grantee\n procurement compliance.\n\n Recommendation #3\n BHS concurs with Recommendation #3, with comment. The recommendation for this finding is\n based on the 2012 BHS THIRA, which was the lirst year state agencies were required to produce\n this document. Audit team members were apprised that BHS was actively engaged in the\n process of refining the BHS THIRA for 2013, and that measurable and quantifiable mctrics\n would be included in the updated capability target statements. Capability targets that set tangible\n and measurable target levels of performance are now complete and documented in the 2013\n THIRA, 2014 IBHS Strategic Plan, and the 2013 State Preparedness Report.\n\n BHS has attached a completed copy of the 2013 BHS THlRA as well as the Idaho Military\n Division, Bureau of Homeland Security 2014 Strategic Plan. The strategic p lan encompasses the\n 2011 and forward State Homeland Security Grant Program. Notably, FEMA Region X has\n asked for BHS\'s THIRA and strategic plarming model to be presented as best practice examples\n to other states within the region, highlighting the improvements BHS has made to the 2013\n THIRA.\n\n\n\n\n Phone: (208) 422\xc2\xb730GO \xe2\x80\xa2 Fax: (208) 422\xc2\xb7 3044 \xe2\x80\xa2 24 \xc2\xb7Hour Emergency Not1f1cation: (208) 846\xc2\xb776 10\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 23 OIG-14-61\n\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Ms. Anne L. Richards\n January 13,2014\n Page3\n\n\n Recommendation #4\n BHS does not concur with Recommendation #4. Grant guidance for 2010-1012 mandates four\n requirements for timely the obligation of grant funds .\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 There must be some action to establish a fum commitment on the part ofthe awarding\n entity.\n o BHS made a firm commitment when the application package indicating the award\n amount was made available to subgrantees.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The action must be unconditional on the part of the awarding entity.\n o The application was unconditional. There were no contingences.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 There must be documentary evidence of the commitment.\n o The commitment was documented when the application package was sent to the\n subawardees.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The award terms must be communicated to the official grantee.\n o The application package contained the specific award terms.\n\n BHS believes that meeting the above criteria, within 45 days from the time that funds are made\n available to the state, satisfies compliance with the grant guidance in place at the time. These\n four obligatory elements were satisfied when the application package was sent to the subgrantees\n via e-mail.\n\n BHS understands the need to reduce the time from award to execution of the grant program; and\n is committed to review processes and make changes to improve the subaward process.\n\n Recommendation #5\n BHS does not concur \\vith Recommendation #5 nor do we accept this recommendation falls\n within the scope of this OIG audit. The audit report admits that no requirement exists in\n applicable grant guidance for a sustainment plan. The report references an information bulletin\n that encourages budgetary planning; but this reference does not require states to develop a\n comprehensive contingency plan to sustain preparedness capabilities in the event of reduced\n federal funding. As a State government agency, BHS serves the citizens ofldaho as directed by\n the Governor and as funded by the Legislature.\n\n The State of Idaho \\viii always do everything in its power to provide for the safety of its citizens;\n however reductions in federal funding will have capability consequences. BHS was\n disappointed by the OTG recommendation which falls outside its scope, specifically that a Jack of\n a contingency plan is a reflection of BHS \'s ability to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond\n to, and recover from terrorist attacks and major disasters. BHS believes that this OIG\n\n\n\n Phone: {208) 422\xc2\xb73040 \xe2\x80\xa2 Fax : {208} 422\xc2\xb73044 \xe2\x80\xa2 24\xc2\xb7 Hour Emergency NOt ification: (208 } 846- 7510\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 24 OIG-14-61\n\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Ms. Anne L. Richards\n January 13, 2014\n Page4\n\n\n recommendation could have been handled informally, as a courtesy suggestion and not as a\n recommendation that lies outside ofthe scope of this audit.\n\n The Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security appreciates the opportunity to respond to the\n recommendations outlined in the DHS OIG audit report. We believe our sincere efforts and\n systematic processes increase Idaho\'s resiliency. Should you have any questions or require\n further information please feel free to contact me or our Grants Management Branch.\n\n Sincerely,\n\n\n $~\n Brad Richy, Colonel, Idaho Military Division\n Director, Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security\n\n\n\n\n Phone: (208) 422 3040 \xe2\x80\xa2 Fax: ( 208) 422-3044 \xe2\x80\xa2 24-Hour Emergency Not1fic~toon: (208) 846-7610\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 25 OIG-14-61\n\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security\n Subgrantee Monitoring Visit\n 2013 Calander Year completed\n Type of\n I Subgrantee Grants Monitored Award Amounts\n Visit\n 2009 HSGP $56,343.07\n 1/2/13 Jerome County Site Visit 2010 HSGP $67,586.92\n 2011 EMPG $20,036.54\n 2009 HSGP $45,345.53\n 1/2/13 Gooding County SiteVist 2010HSGP $54,671.55\n 2011 EMPG $7,477.14\n 7010 HSGP $30,272.84\n 2011 11SGP $22,652.35\n 11/21/13 Butte Site Vi!).il\n 2012 HSGP $12,746.22\n 2012 EMPG $8,513 54\n 2010 HSGP $117,91215\n 20 11 HSGP $91,H4.54\n 11/19/13 Bingham Site Visit\n 2012 HSGP $49,815.22\n 2012 EMPG $33,272.88\n 2010 HSGP $26,182.95\n 11/18/ 13 Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Site Vis it 2011 HSGP $26,182.95\n 2012 H5GP $14,149.71\n 2010 H5GP $197,1 1 7.04\n 2011 H5GP $150,843.51\n 11/18/13 Bannock Site Visit\n 20 12 HSGP $82,250.82\n 2012 EMPG $54,937.45\n 2010 HSG P $236,415.10\n 2011 HSGP $185,148.93\n 11/ 19/13 Bonneville Cllunty S1t eV,sot\n 2012 IISGP $101,228.80\n 2012 EMPG $67,613.34\n 2010 HSG P $76,363.96\n 2011 HSG P $59,930.53\n 11/21/13 Jefferson County Sit e Visit\n 2012 H5GP $32,925.75\n 2012 EM PG $21, 991.97\n 2010 HSGP $104,873.65\n 2011 H5GP $77,914.62\n 11/20/13 Madi,on COlJ\'lty Site Visit\n 2012 HSGP 542,863.82\n 7012 EM PG $28,629.86\n 11/2 0/13 Teton County Sit e Visit 2010HSGP $54,592.14\n 2012 EM PG $12,180.08\n 2011 POM $428,909.56\n 2010 HSGP $111,083.85\n 20 11 H5GP $83,560.31\n 9/27/13 Bonner County Site V1sit\n 2012 HSGP $45,394.11\n 2012 EMPG $30,319.90\n 2010 HSGP $11,742.26\n Desk review\n CDA Tribe Si~e VISit 2011 HSGP $11,751.36\n in progress\n 2012 HSGP $6,694.00\n 2010 HSGP S50,969.Sl\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 26 OIG-14-61\n\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n\n 2011 HSGP $38,484.64\n 9/26/13 Shoshone County Site Visit\n 2012 HSGP $21.212.03\n 2012 EMPG $14,168.06\n 2012 HMEP $11,556.36\n 2010 HSGP $30,000.00\n 10/16/13 RRT 6 Pocatello FD Site Visit\n 2011 HSGP $30.000.00\n 2012 HSGP $18,000.00\n 2010 HSGP $15,000.00\n 10/16/ 13 ITRT 3A Pocatello FD Site Visit 2011 HSGP $15,000.00\n 2012 HSGP $8,000.00\n 2012 HMEP $11,556.35\n 2010 HSGP $30,000.00\n 10/17/13 RRT 7 Idaho Falls FD Site Visit\n 20ll HSGP $30,000.00\n 2012 HSGP $18,000.00\n 2010 HSGP $15,000.00\n 10/17/13 ITRT 38 Idaho Falls FD Site Visit 2011 HSGP $15,000.00\n 2012 HSGP $6,000.00\n 2010 HSGP $30,000.00\n 10/ 16/H RBS 7 Idaho Falls PO SiteVis1t 2011 HSGP $30,000.00\n 2012 HSGP $16,00000\n 2010 HSGP $30,000.00\n 10/ 15/ 13 RBS 5 Twin Falls PO Site Visit lOl l HSGP $30,000.00\n 2012 HSGP $16,000.00\n 2010 HSGP $30,00000\n 9/23/ 13 ART 1 Kootenai Co Fire Site Vi sit 2011 HSGP $30,000.00\n 2012 HSGP $18,000.00\n 2010 HSGP $56,116.00\n 9/26/13 ICSAR 1 CDA Fire Site Visit 2011 HSGP $30,000.00\n 2012 HSGP $16,000.00\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 27 OIG-14-61\n\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n 2014 Subgrantee Monitoring Schedule\n\n 201. Subsrantee Type of Visit Grants Monitored Award Amounts Completed\n 2011 HSGP $25,020.62\n 2012 HSGP $14,044.89\n July Custer County Site Visit\n 2013 HSGP $18.576.12\n 2013 EMPG $9, 168.05\n 2011 HSGP $30.741.66\n 2012 HSGP $17,168.21\n July Lemh1 County Site Visit\n 201311SGP $24,453.16\n 2013 EMPG $11,081.52\n 2011 H5GP $19,591.40\n 2012 HSGP $12,016.48\n July Clark County 51teVisit 2013 H5GP $14,659.49\n 2013 EMPG $7,235.03\n 2012 POM $48,500.00\n 2011 HSGP 539,249.47\n 2012 HSGP $21,603.94\n April Fremont County Site Visit\n 2013 H5GP 528,334.90\n 2013 EMPG $13,984.39\n 2011 H5GP $27,614.97\n 2012 H5GP $15,478.49\n April Bear Like s~e Visit\n 2013 H5GP $20,359.08\n 7013 FMPG $10,048.01\n 2011115GP $36,235.60\n 2012 HSG P $16,305.30\n April caribou Site V1sit\n 2013 HSGP $21,354.65\n 2013EMPG $ 10.539.36\n 2011 HSGP $38,51831\n 2012 HSGP $71,365.01\n Apr il Franklin Site VISit\n 2013 HSGP $28,141.44\n 2013EMPG $13,888.91\n 2011 HSGP $24,889.14\n 2012 HSGP $13,943.47\n Apri l Oneida Site Visit\n 2013 HSGP $18,444.89\n 2013 EMPG $9,103.28\n 2011 HSGP $30,550.86\n 201211SGP $16,995.45\n April Pow~Jr 51teVis~\n 2013 HSGP $22,475.79\n 2013 EMPG $11,092.68\n 2011 HSGP $24,392.07\n 2012 HSGP $19,738.92\n March Adams County Site Visit 2013 HSGP $18,105.49\n 2011 PDM $51,000.00\n 2013 EMPG 58,935.77\n 2011 HSGP $29,285.75\n 2012 HSGP $16,358.58\n April Boise County Site Visit\n 2013 HSGP $21,408.95\n 2013 EMPG $10,566. 16\n 2011 HSGP $54,291.27\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 28 OIG-14-61\n\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n\n 2012 HSGP $32,117.66\n M3rch Payette County Si~Vi>it\n 2013 H5GP $39, /88.35\n 2013 EMPG $19,390.35\n 201l HSGP $33,829.87\n 2012 11SGP $18,604.3S\n May Vahey County Site \\li>it\n 2013HSGP $24.474.83\n 2013 EMPG $12,079.29\n 201lHSGP $34.368 63\n 2012 HSGP $19,134.67\n May Washington County S\xe2\x80\xa2te Visit\n 2013 HSGP $2S,IOl.S8\n 2013 [MPG $12,388.62\n 2011 HSGP $32,904.69\n 2012 HSGP $18,235.67\n May 6enewah CountY Stte Visit 2013 HSGP $23,990.63\n 2013 EMPG $11,840.32\n 201l PDM $428,909.56\n 2011 HSGP $35,609.68\n 2012 HSGP $19,606.S3\n 2013 HSGP $25,903.69\n M ~y Boundary Countv Site Visit\n 2013 EMPG $12,784.49\n 2012 PDM $49,100.00\n 2012 OPSG $48,763.00\n 2011 HSGP Sll,751.36\n May CDA Tnbe Site Visit 2012 HSGP $6,694.00\n 2013 HSGP $12,300.00\n 2011 HSGP $240,082.50\n 2012 HSGP $131,619.11\n May Kootenai CountY Site Visit\n 2013 HSGP $174,727.86\n 2013 EMPG 586,235.07\n 2011 HSG P $10,000.00\n May RBS I Spokane PO Site Visit 201] HSGP ss,ooo.oo\n 2013 HSGP $5,000.00\n 2011 HSGP $32,413.50\n 2012 IISGP $17,799.92\n April Oearwater Site Visit\n 2013 HSGP $23,39\xe2\x80\xa2.42\n 2013 EMPG $11,546.07\n 2011 HSGP S44,737.n\n 2012 HSGP $/4,455.67\n May idaho Site ViSit\n 2013 HSGP $32,125.96\n 2013 EMPG $1~,8~5.4 2\n\n 2011 HSGP $79,218.70\n 2012 HSGP $42,726.31\n May Latah Site Visit\n 2013 HSGP $56,874.74\n 2013 EMPG $11,081.52\n 201 211SGP $13,605.70\n May Lewis Site Visit 2013 HSGP $18,076.08\n 2013 [MPG $8,921.26\n 201l HSGP $82,539.75\n 2012 H5GP $44,306.87\n May Nez Perce Site Vi>it\n 2013 HSGP $58,398.63\n 2013 EMPG $28,822.02\n 2011 HSGP $18, 180.95\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 29 OIG-14-61\n\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n\n 2012 HSGP $9,953.73\n May Nez Perce Tribe Site Visit\n 2013 ~SGP $17,000.00\n 2013 EIIIPG $4,502.75\n 2011 HSGP $713,260.15\n 2012 HSGP $382,873.45\n March Ada Site Visit\n 20HHSGP $~76,455.75\n 2013 EMPG $235,149.65\n 2011 HSGP $21,430.24\n 2012 HSGP SU.l78.78\n March camas Site VIsit\n 2013 HSGP $14,894.83\n 2013 EMPG $7,351.17\n 2011 HSGP $346,018.04\n 2012 HSGP $188,911.49\n March canyon Site VIsit\n 2013 HSGP $233,025.97\n 2013 EMPG Sn~.U07.48\n\n 2011 HSGP $49,254.62\n 2012 HSGP $26,591.34\n May Gem S1teV1sit\n 2013 HSGP $32,538.89\n 2013 EMPG $16,059.22\n 20111 15GP $54,185.26\n 2012 HSGP $29,827 94\n March Mnodoka Site Visit\n 2013 HSGP $36,344.65\n 2013 EMPG $17,937.52\n 2011 HSGP $156,053.98\n 2012 HSGP $83,477.45\n May Twin Falls Site VIsit\n 2013 HSGP $102.592.56\n 2013 EMPG $50,633.46\n 2011 HSGP $30,000.00\n May RRT 2 Lewiston Fire Site Vosit 2012 HSGP $18,000.00\n 2013 HSGP $20,000.00\n 2011 HSGP $30,000.00\n July RRT 3 Caldwell Fire Site Vis1t 2012 HSGP $18,000.00\n 2013 HSGP $20,000.00\n 2011 HSGP $30,000.00\n J uly RRT 4 Boise Fire Site VIs it 2012 HSGP $18,000.00\n 2013 HSG P $20,000.00\n 2011 HSGP $30,000.00\n July RBS 3 Nampa PO Site Visit 2012 HSGP S 16,000.00\n 2013 HSGP $ 16,000.00\n 2011 HSGP $30,000.00\n July RBS 4 Boise PO Site Visit 2012 HSGP $16,000.00\n 2013 HSGP $16,000.00\n 2011HSGP $30,000.00\n July ITRT 2 Boose Fire SoteVosit 2012 HSGP $16,000.00\n 2013 HSGP $ 16,000.00\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 30 OIG-14-61\n\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Appendix D\n Homeland Security Grant Program Overview\n State Homeland Security Program\n The State Homeland Security Program supports the implementation of state homeland\n security strategies to address the identified planning, organization, equipment, training,\n and exercise needs to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from\n acts of terrorism and other catastrophic events.\n\n Urban Areas Security Initiative\n The Urban Areas Security Initiative funds address the unique planning, organization,\n equipment, training, and exercise needs of high-threat, high-density urban areas, and\n assists them in building an enhanced and sustainable capacity to prevent, protect\n against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism.\n\n Operation Stonegarden\n Operation Stonegarden funds are intended to enhance cooperation and coordination\n among local, tribal, territorial, state, and Federal law enforcement agencies in a joint\n mission to secure the United States borders along routes of ingress from international\n borders to include travel corridors in states bordering Mexico and Canada, as well as\n states and territories with international water borders.\n\n Metropolitan Medical Response System1\n The Metropolitan Medical Response System supports the integration of emergency\n management, health, and medical systems into a coordinated response to mass casualty\n incidents caused by any hazard. Successful Metropolitan Medical Response System\n grantees reduce the consequences of a mass casualty incident during the initial period\n of a response by having augmented existing local operational response systems before\n an incident occurs.\n\n Citizen Corps\n The Citizen Corps\xe2\x80\x99 mission is to bring community and government leaders together to\n coordinate the involvement of community members and organizations in emergency\n preparedness, planning, mitigation, response, and recovery.\n\n\n\n 1\n As of the start of FY 2012, the Metropolitan Medical Response System and Citizen Corps are no longer\n funded as discrete grant programs.\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 31 OIG-14-61\n\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Appendix E\n Idaho Area Field Office Regions\n\n\n\n\n Source:fIBHS\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 32 OIG-14-61\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Appendix F\n Major Contributors to This Report\n Donald Bumgardner, Director\n J. Eric Barnett, Audit Manager\n Pamela Brown, Auditor-in-Charge\n Andrew Herman, Auditor\n Erica Stern, Program Analyst\n Kelly Herberger, Communications Analyst\n Katrina Bynes, Independent Reference Reviewer\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 33 OIG-14-61\n\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Appendix G\n Report Distribution\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n Secretary\n Deputy Secretary\n Chief of Staff\n Deputy Chief of Staff\n General Counsel\n Executive Secretary\n Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office\n Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy\n Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs\n Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs\n Chief Privacy Officer\n\n Federal Emergency Management Agency\n Administrator\n Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs Directorate\n Audit Liaison\n Grant Programs Directorate Audit Liaison\n\n Office of Management and Budget\n Chief, Homeland Security Branch\n DHS OIG Budget Examiner\n\n Congress\n Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as appropriate\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 34 OIG-14-61\n\n\x0cADDITIONAL INFORMATION\n\nTo view this and any of our other reports, please visit our website at: www.oig.dhs.gov.\n\nFor further information or questions, please contact Office of Inspector General (OIG)\nOffice of Public Affairs at: DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@oig.dhs.gov, or follow us on\nTwitter at: @dhsoig.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nOIG HOTLINE\n\nTo expedite the reporting of alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any\nother kinds of criminal or noncriminal misconduct relative to Department of Homeland\nSecurity (DHS) programs and operations, please visit our website at www.oig.dhs.gov\nand click on the red tab titled "Hotline" to report. You will be directed to complete and\nsubmit an automated DHS OIG Investigative Referral Submission Form. Submission\nthrough our website ensures that your complaint will be promptly received and\nreviewed by DHS OIG.\n\nShould you be unable to access our website, you may submit your complaint in writing\nto:\n\n Department of Homeland Security \n\n Office of Inspector General, Mail Stop 0305 \n\n Attention: Office of Investigations Hotline \n\n 245 Murray Drive, SW \n\n Washington, DC 20528-0305 \n\n\nYou may also call 1(800) 323-8603 or fax the complaint directly to us at\n(202) 254-4297.\n\nThe OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller.\n\x0c'