Return to the Table of Contents

Semiannual Report to Congress

October 1, 2001–March 31, 2002
Office of the Inspector General


The Audit Division (Audit) audits Department organizations, programs, functions, computer technology and security systems, and financial statements. Audit also conducts or oversees external audits of expenditures made under Department contracts, grants, and other agreements. Audits are conducted in accordance with the Comptroller General's Government Auditing Standards and related professional auditing standards.

Audit develops recommendations for corrective actions that will resolve identified weaknesses. By doing so, Audit promotes more efficient and effective Department operations.

Audit has field offices in Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Washington, DC. The Financial Statement Audit Office and Computer Security and Information Technology Audit Office also are located in Washington, DC. Audit Headquarters consists of the immediate office of the Assistant Inspector General (AIG) for Audit, the Office of Operations, the Office of Policy and Planning, and an Advanced Audit Techniques Group.

The field offices' geographic coverage is indicated on the map below. The Denver office also covers Alaska; the San Francisco office also covers Hawaii, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa; and the Atlanta office also covers Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

United States map showing offices in San Francisco, Denver, Dallas, Chicago, Washington D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta

During this reporting period, Audit issued 200 audit reports containing more than $25 million in questioned costs and $12 million in funds to better use and made 268 recommendations for management improvement. Specifically, Audit issued 15 internal reports of programs funded at more than $2 billion; 24 external reports of contracts, grants, and other agreements funded at more than $95 million; 76 audits of bankruptcy trustees with responsibility for funds of more than $154 million; and 85 Single Audit Act audits.


GISRA directs the OIG to perform independent evaluations of the Department's information security program and practices. Our FY 2001 GISRA audits examined nine Department computer systems, four classified and five SBU. The systems we selected are mission critical and representative of differing system configurations and operating systems. During this reporting period, we issued final audit reports on one classified and four SBU systems used by various Department components.

Our audits of both the classified and SBU systems revealed vulnerabilities with management, operational, and technical controls that protect each system and the data stored on it from unauthorized use, loss, or modification. Because technical controls prevent unauthorized access to system resources by restricting, controlling, and monitoring system access, we concluded that the vulnerabilities noted in those areas were the most significant.

Overall, the GISRA audits found common vulnerabilities with security policies and procedures, password management, and logon management. Issues with account integrity and systems auditing management also were found. To varying degrees, each audit found insufficient or unenforced Department-level and component security policies and procedures. In several areas of identified vulnerabilities, broadly stated or minimally imposed standards allowed system security managers too much latitude in establishing system settings and, consequently, systems were not fully secured. The vulnerabilities identified were more voluminous and material for the Department's classified systems than for its SBU systems. We attributed this to Department management performing penetration testing on its SBU systems but not its classified systems.

To address the deficiencies noted, we offered a series of recommendations, including increased oversight, development of documented procedures, and establishment of proper system settings to help improve computer security. The components generally concurred with our findings and agreed to implement corrective action.

The Department administers grants to state and local agencies to enhance their ability to respond to terrorist acts. These domestic preparedness grant programs were initiated pursuant to the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which required the Attorney General to work in consultation with the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to provide grants for specialized training and equipment to metropolitan fire and emergency service departments. In April 1998, the Attorney General delegated authority to OJP to administer funds for grants to local responders. The grant program was implemented by OJP.

As of January 15, 2002, more than half of the total funds appropriated for equipment under the grant program from FY 1998 through FY 2001 - $141 million out of $243 million - still had not been awarded. About $65 million in grant funds awarded for equipment was still unspent. We also found that nearly $1 million in equipment purchased with grants was not available for use because grantees did not properly distribute the equipment, could not locate it, or had not been adequately trained how to operate it. Although the grantees we contacted were satisfied with the overall quality of federally funded training, we found that OJP had not developed performance measures for evaluating whether the program improved grantees' capability to respond to terrorist acts.

We recommended that OJP (1) continue current efforts to ensure that states submit applications for funds from prior appropriations and establish controls to ensure that applications for future funding are submitted as expeditiously as possible, (2) establish controls to ensure grantees use available funds as quickly as possible, (3) ensure that grantees properly distribute and maintain specialized equipment and obtain adequate training to operate it, (4) remedy the questioned costs for equipment that was unavailable or unusable at the time of our audit, (5) ensure that grantees conduct or participate in exercises to maintain their state of readiness, and (6) develop performance standards in keeping with the intent of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) for evaluating whether grant support is improving grantees' capability to respond to terrorist incidents. OJP agreed with our recommendations.

Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 63 requires the Department and other government agencies to prepare plans for protecting their critical infrastructure, which includes systems essential to the minimum operations of the economy and government, such as telecommunications, banking and finance, energy, and transportation. The plans ordered by PDD 63 must include an inventory of the Department's mission-essential assets, the vulnerability of each, and plans to remedy those vulnerabilities.

As part of an effort sponsored by the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE), we audited the Department's planning and assessment activities for protecting its critical physical infrastructure. We found that the Department's ability to perform vital missions is at risk from terrorist attacks or similar threats because it had not adequately planned for the protection of its critical physical assets.

We found that the Department viewed PDD 63 primarily as a mandate to protect its computer-related critical assets; consequently, its efforts thus far have focused on identifying and assessing critical information technology systems and related facilities and personnel. We recommended that the Department also focus on physical infrastructure and assess vulnerabilities of physical infrastructure .

The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 and the Government Management Reform Act of 1994 require annual financial statement audits of the Department. Audit oversees and issues the reports based on the work performed by independent public accountants. During this reporting period, we issued the audit report for the Department of Justice Annual Financial Statement for FY 2001.

For the first time, the Department received an unqualified opinion on all of its FY 2001 consolidated financial statements. This was an improvement over FY 2000 when the Department received an unqualified opinion on its balance sheet and statement of custodial activity and a qualified opinion on its remaining statements. A qualified opinion means that the financial statements are presented fairly in all material respects, except for matters identified in the audit report.

The Department's unqualified opinion also included unqualified opinions for the first time on all ten of the reporting components' financial statements that make up the consolidated report. Importantly, the components were able to reduce the number of material weaknesses and reportable conditions, which signifies improvements in the components' internal controls.

However, as in FY 2000, the Department had to expend tremendous manual efforts and costs in preparing its financial statement for FY 2001. Many tasks had to be performed manually because the Department lacks automated systems to readily support ongoing accounting operations, financial statement preparation, and the audit process. The OIG's concern about these conditions is increased because the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is requiring that FY 2002 annual financial statements be submitted one month earlier than in FY 2001.

In the FY 2001 consolidated financial statements, the three material weaknesses previously reported in FYs 1999 and 2000 at the Department level remain material weaknesses:

In the Report on Compliance with Laws and Regulations, the auditors also identified five Department components that were not compliant with the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996, which specifically addresses the adequacy of federal financial management systems. In addition, one instance of component noncompliance with the Debt Collection Improvement Act was cited.

The auditors recommended that the Department make revisions to the Departmentwide financial statement reporting requirements and monitor components' compliance and efforts to correct all deficiencies noted. The Department concurred with the recommendations.

The following table compares the FY 2001 and the FY 2000 audit results for the Department consolidated audit as well as for the ten individual component audits.

Comparison of FY 2001 and FY 2000 Audit Results

Reporting EntityAuditors' Opinion on
Financial Statements
Number of Material WeaknessesNumber of Reportable Conditions
2001 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000
Consolidated Department of JusticeUnqualifiedQualified 13301
Assets Forfeiture Fund and Seized Asset Deposit FundUnqualifiedUnqualified0002
Federal Bureau of PrisonsUnqualifiedUnqualified0003
Drug Enforcement AdministrationUnqualifiedUnqualified4412
Federal Bureau of InvestigationUnqualifiedUnqualified3211
Federal Prison Industries, Inc.UnqualifiedUnqualified 22521
Immigration and Naturalization ServiceUnqualifiedQualified 13313
Offices, Boards and DivisionsUnqualifiedUnqualified0022
Office of Justice ProgramsUnqualifiedUnqualified0033
U.S. Marshals ServiceUnqualifiedUnqualified1123
Working Capital FundUnqualifiedUnqualified0003
Component Totals13151223

  1. Qualified on Statement of Net Cost, Statement of Changes in Net Position, Statement of Budgetary Resources, and Statement of Financing. Unqualified on other financial statements.
  2. Originally reported as qualified, but qualification subsequently removed during FY 2001 audit after auditors were able to sufficiently extend audit procedures to FY 2001 beginning balances.

The Prompt Payment Act of 1982 requires executive departments to pay vendors interest penalties when payments are late, as prescribed in OMB Circular A-125. Interest penalties must be paid automatically, and agencies must absorb the cost from available funds of the program for which the payment was late.

We found that the Department paid $5.8 million in interest penalties in FY 2001, a significant increase from the $3 million paid by the Department in FY 1999. Three components -the FBI, INS, and Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP)/Federal Prison Industries - accounted for about 80 percent of the FY 2001 total. The FBI and INS reported the most interest paid in FY 2001, approximately $2 million and $1.6 million, respectively.

Our report recommended increased monitoring of each of the components to ensure the timely payment of bills. One form of increased monitoring could involve periodic submission of Prompt Payment statistics by the components to the Department's Justice Management Division (JMD). We intend to continue issuing reports on Prompt Payment Act interest penalties.

The Federal Witness Security Program (Program) protects government witnesses and their families who are working with law enforcement or providing testimony in criminal cases. The Department's Criminal Division is responsible for admitting witnesses into the Program and for collecting, analyzing, and reporting the results of protected witness testimony. Our audit focused on the administration of the Program within the Criminal Division's Office of Enforcement Operations (OEO).

Overall, we found that the OEO admitted witnesses into the Program in accordance with the Witness Security Reform Act of 1984 and took appropriate action in terminating witnesses from the Program who substantially breached Program guidelines. In our judgment, the OEO had made improvement in overcoming a long history of problems associated with reporting the results of protected witness testimony. Specifically, we found improved cooperation among assistant U.S. attorneys (AUSAs) in providing the OEO with the results of protected witness testimony. In addition, the OEO's new information tracking system should improve how the OEO collects and reports data.

However, we found continued problems with how OEO compiles and reports protected witness data. In reviewing their most recent data, we found significant overstatements in the number of defendants against whom protected witnesses testified or cooperated and the resulting number of indictments and convictions. Specifically, the most recent data on protected witness testimony resulted in 1,621 defendants, 1,607 indictments, and 920 convictions. However, we found that these numbers were overstated - defendants by 296 (18 percent), indictments by 746 (46 percent), and convictions by 228 (25 percent). These discrepancies occurred because of flaws in the process the OEO used to compile the data and in the formula the OEO used to calculate the number of indictments. We also noted that the Criminal Division did not comply with GPRA requirements to develop outcome-based performance measures related to the results of protected witness testimony.

Congress enacted the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) in 1994 to ensure that law enforcement agencies, when authorized by court order, had the ability to intercept electronic communications. Under the CALEA, the FBI is authorized to reimburse telecommunications carriers up to $500 million for costs associated with equipment modifications. The OIG is required by the CALEA to report to Congress on the equipment, facilities, and services that have been modified to comply with CALEA requirements; whether FBI payments to telecommunications carriers for equipment modifications are reasonable and cost-effective; and projections of future costs for such modifications.

Our audit found that the FBI has made progress toward its goal of ensuring that law enforcement agencies have the ability to conduct lawfully authorized electronic surveillance. The FBI either paid or obligated nearly $400 million to reimburse carriers for the purchases of right-to-use manufacturers' electronic surveillance software licenses. However, we found no basis to render an opinion regarding the reasonableness of the costs incurred for the licenses because the companies did not provide the FBI with adequate cost or pricing data. The right-to-use software license agreements did not include costs for the modifications carriers must make to their systems to activate CALEA-compliant software. Therefore, the FBI determined that the $500 million authorized under the CALEA is not sufficient to fund future modifications. The additional amount needed has not been determined because of incomplete negotiations with the industry and ongoing technical innovations in the telecommunications field.

We continue to audit grants disbursed by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). During this reporting period, we performed 15 audits of COPS hiring and redeployment grants. Our audits identified more than $11 million in questioned costs and more than $3 million in funds to better use.

The following are examples of findings reported in our audits of COPS grants during this period:

The DEA awarded six contracts to obtain linguistic services to perform monitoring, transcription, and translation services. The contracts were awarded for services at the DEA's field divisions in Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Miami, New York, and San Diego. We performed individual audits of contractors in Dallas, Houston, Miami, and San Diego. These four contractors had been paid $9.5 million at the time of our audits.

Our audits found that, while the AUSAs and DEA case agents that we interviewed indicated that the quality of the linguistic services was adequate, weaknesses existed in the DEA's monitoring of payments to the contractors and in the contractors' claims for reimbursement. Those weaknesses included the DEA paying for services not authorized by delivery orders or for services that exceeded the delivery order amounts. As a result, we questioned $2.7 million of the $9.5 million paid to the contractors in our individual contract audits.

Our audit of the BOP's network computer system (BOPNet) examined computer security controls that protect the BOP's computer systems and sensitive information stored on them. We used commercial off-the-shelf security software to detect system security vulnerabilities and automate the audit process. Our review disclosed vulnerabilities in password, login, and system auditing management. These vulnerabilities occurred because of insufficient or unenforced Department-level and BOP security policies and procedures. We made eight recommendations to improve BOPNet security management. The BOP agreed with seven of the eight recommendations. This report is not publicly available given the sensitivity of the system.

The Department depends on state and local governments to provide detention space and services for federal prisoners or detainees. To obtain these services, Department components enter into formal Intergovernmental Service Agreements (IGAs) with state and local governments to provide detention space and services at a per diem rate. The OIG conducts audits of IGAs to determine if the costs charged the Department are allowable. The following are examples of IGAs we audited during this reporting period.

Civil debt that has been established as an amount owed the federal government is collected through litigation by the 94 U.S. Attorneys Offices (USAOs) and the 5 litigating divisions within the Department that have authority to collect debts. Additionally, civil debt may be collected by private attorneys within certain judicial districts. The Office of Debt Collection Management (DCM) is the office within JMD that annually reports the status of the Department's collection efforts. The DCM is responsible for overseeing the collection of debt and developing programs to support the collection of debts by USAOs and the Department litigating divisions.

We completed an audit of an issue identified in the OIG's July 2001 Audit of the Office of Debt Collection Management's Implementation of the Collection Litigation Automated Support System. Our follow-up audit identified differences of $98 million and $220 million in FYs 1998 and 1999 between collections reported by the USAOs and litigating divisions and deposits to the U.S. Treasury reported by the Debt Accounting Operations Group (DAOG). We also found that the Department's civil debt collection reporting process needs to be strengthened. Collection activity reported by the USAOs and the litigating divisions was not reconciled with amounts reported by the DAOG as deposits in the Department's Treasury account. Additionally, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) was not adequately reviewing USAOs' monthly extracts from the Tracking Assistance for the Legal Office Network - to ensure that reported beginning year balances of civil debt agreed with the prior year ending balances - before compiling the national report.

We recommended that the Department implement procedures to reconcile amounts reported as collected by the USAOs and the litigating divisions against the amounts reported as collected and deposited in the Department's Treasury account. We also recommended that procedures be implemented to ensure that data extracts are adequately reviewed prior to preparation of the summary report. The Department concurred with our findings.

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (known as Superfund) provides for liability, compensation, cleanup, and emergency response for hazardous substances released into the environment and for uncontrolled and abandoned hazardous waste sites. The Department conducts and controls all litigation arising under Superfund and is reimbursed through interagency agreements with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These agreements authorize reimbursement to the Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD) for direct and indirect litigation costs. The EPA authorized $29.6 million and $30 million under the agreements in FYs 1998 and 1999, respectively, and the ENRD contracted with an accounting firm to institute and maintain a system of accounting controls for these funds.

In March 1998, the ENRD modified its case and time data system to a direct entry process by staff. The system is used to distribute labor costs and indirect costs by case. We reviewed the system to assess the allocability of such costs to Superfund and non-Superfund cases during FYs 1998 and 1999. We reviewed other direct costs based on supporting documentation for the costs and the applicable cases. We determined that the ENRD provided an equitable distribution of total labor costs, other direct costs, and indirect costs to Superfund cases during FYs 1998 and 1999. In addition to this audit, the OIG performed a separate audit of the internal controls and computer security controls of the ENRD's information systems. We determined that internal controls for the case and time data entry system were adequate.

The United States Marshals Service (USMS) maintains custody of assets seized by Department components and disposes of the assets after they have been forfeited to the federal government. At the end of FY 2000, the inventory of seized and forfeited assets in USMS custody was valued at more than $800 million.

Previous audits by our office and the General Accounting Office (GAO) identified significant problems in USMS management of seized and forfeited assets. Although recent audit reports by the GAO and others document improvements in the USMS's management of seized and forfeited assets, we initiated this audit because asset forfeiture remains a high-risk area.

We audited sites in three western USMS districts (Southern California, Nevada, and Arizona) where we tested USMS maintenance and disposal of vehicles, vessels, cash, and financial instruments. We also evaluated the disposal of forfeited jewelry at a nationwide auction held in Las Vegas, Nevada, in March 2001. In brief, our audit identified no significant deficiencies in the USMS's management of seized and forfeited assets in the categories we tested. Our testing disclosed that the asset valuations in the Consolidated Assets Tracking System were generally reasonable and the USMS generally disposed of forfeited assets in a timely manner.

We completed attestation reviews of schedules submitted to the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) for the FY 2001 Annual Accounting of Drug Control Obligations. Thirteen Department organizations and components are required by the ONDCP Circular, Annual Accounting of Drug Control Funds, to submit schedules on obligations related to drug expenditures. The Department reported $8.1 billion in obligations related to drug control. The OIG is required to review the schedules for compliance with the Circular.

The objective of each review is to attest to assertions made by Department management. A review is narrower in scope than an examination and does not result in expression of an opinion. We found nothing to indicate that the submissions were not presented, in all material respects, in accordance with the requirements of the ONDCP Circular.

The OIG contributes to the integrity of the bankruptcy program by conducting performance audits of trustees under a reimbursable agreement with the Executive Office for U.S. Trustees. During this reporting period, we issued 76 reports on the Chapter 7 bankruptcy practices of private trustees under Title 11, United States Code (Bankruptcy Code).

The Chapter 7 trustees are appointed to collect, liquidate, and distribute personal and business cases under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. As a representative of the bankruptcy estate, the Chapter 7 trustee serves as a fiduciary protecting the interests of all estate beneficiaries, including creditors and debtors.

We conduct performance audits on Chapter 7 trustees to provide U.S. Trustees with an assessment of the trustees' compliance with bankruptcy laws, regulations, rules, and the requirements of the Handbook for Chapter 7 Trustees. Additionally, the audits assess the quality of the private trustees' accounting for bankruptcy estate assets, cash management practices, bonding, internal controls, file maintenance, and other administrative practices.

Our audits found that some trustees were deficient in documenting monthly bank reconciliations of estate accounts, maintaining receipts logs, investing estate funds properly, depositing estate funds timely and in the appropriate accounts, developing disaster recovery plans for financial and administrative records, implementing computer security, separating cash handling and recording duties, and maintaining support and authorization for receipts and disbursements.

The Single Audit Act of 1984, as amended, requires recipients of more than $300,000 in federal funds to arrange for audits of their activities. Federal agencies that award federal funds must review these audits to determine whether prompt and appropriate corrective action has been taken in response to audit findings. During this reporting period, Audit reviewed and transmitted to OJP 85 reports encompassing 517 Department contracts, grants, and other agreements totaling more than $195 million. These audits report on financial activities, compliance with applicable laws, and the adequacy of recipients' management controls over federal expenditures.


Department components maintain a large inventory of weapons and laptop computers that could result in danger to the public or compromise national security or criminal investigations if not properly controlled. In March 2001, we reported that the INS did not adequately control its property, including weapons and computers. Subsequent to that audit, the FBI disclosed that many weapons and laptops were missing from its inventory. The Attorney General therefore asked the OIG to conduct audits of the controls over the inventory of weapons and laptops throughout the Department, and the OIG initiated reviews at the FBI, DEA, BOP, and USMS. We will issue individual reports for each component and a capping report describing all the audits once they are completed.

Due to the importance of information technology to the FBI's mission and the large amounts of money involved, the OIG has initiated an audit of the FBI's management of its information technology (IT) projects. We will assess how the FBI selects its IT projects, ensures that projects under development deliver benefits, and ensures that completed projects achieve the expected results.

Central to the FBI's ability to prevent, deter, and respond to acts of terrorism is the adequacy of its management controls over its counterterrorism program. This review will evaluate the process by which the FBI determines its counterterrorism resource requirements, assess FBI efforts to evaluate the threat of chemical and biological terrorism and conduct a national terrorism threat and risk assessment, and examine the FBI's strategic planning and performance measurement related to counterterrorism.

The FBI has authority to investigate more than 200 categories of federal offenses ranging from kidnappings and bank robberies to white-collar crimes. The FBI also monitors activities that threaten national security. This audit will describe the types and number of cases the FBI investigates, assess how it allocates its investigative resources, and evaluate the performance measures it uses for its cases.

This audit will review the INS's inspection process at U.S. airports to determine whether INS inspectors have access to needed information, such as lookouts and information developed by passenger analysis units and intelligence staff. We also will evaluate procedures for referring persons to secondary inspection, systems for measuring inspection performance, the training of inspectors, and management controls over the inspection process.

The INS's Institutional Removal Program (IRP) is a national program that identifies removable criminal aliens in federal, state, and local correctional facilities to ensure that the aliens are not released into the community but instead are removed from the United States after completing their sentences. This audit will assess whether the INS (1) effectively planned the IRP, (2) identifies all foreign-born inmates in state or local custody, and (3) incurs any unnecessary detention costs for criminal aliens who have not completed the IRP process while serving their sentence.

The BOP houses approximately 156,000 inmates in 103 facilities. To reduce overcrowding, the BOP has undertaken a large prison construction program. Currently, 13 prisons are under construction at an estimated cost of $1.6 billion. This audit will assess whether the BOP is adequately managing new construction-related contracts, has improved its management since our prior audit of prison construction in 1998, and is making accurate and timely payments to construction contractors.

From FY 1993 through FY 2001, OJP and COPS awarded more than $26 billion in grants. OJP has five bureaus and six program offices that manage grant funds. COPS awards grants under numerous programs to advance community policing across the country. This audit will review the administrative activities and grant functions within OJP and between COPS and OJP to determine whether there are activities and functions that could be streamlined or eliminated to increase operational efficiency.

A number of Department components - particularly the DEA, BOP, OJP, and COPS - spend considerable money and effort on activities designed to reduce the demand for drugs in the United States. This audit will assess (1) how the Department allocates resources to demand reduction, (2) whether Department efforts are coordinated effectively, and (3) whether Department components measure the effectiveness of demand reduction activities.


OMB Circular A-50, Audit Follow-Up, requires audit reports to be resolved within six months of the audit report issuance date. Audit monitors the status of open audit reports to track the audit resolution and closure process. As of March 31, 2002, the OIG had closed 200 audit reports and was monitoring the resolution process of 488 open audit reports.

In June 2001 we completed an audit of the cost incurred under an IGA by the York County Prison, Pennsylvania. We reported that the INS overpaid York County $6 million for the period January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000, and that the INS could save an additional $6 million annually if it negotiated a new agreement based on the audited rate. The overpayment resulted from York County's misrepresentation of data used to calculate the daily payment rate, which significantly inflated the rate York County charged the INS to a profit of more than 55 percent over York County's costs. According to York County documents and newspaper reports, this enabled York County to subsidize its budget, avoid a tax increase, and partially pay off a jail construction loan early. The INS continues to pay York County the same inflated rate and, we estimate, made additional overpayments of about $6.3 million through 2001.


As of March 31, 2002, the following audits had no management decisions:


Funds Recommended to be Put to Better Use
Audit ReportsNumber of
Audit Reports
Funds Recommended to
Be Put to Better Use
No management decision made by beginning of period5$13,278,982
Issued during period10$12,237,176
Needing management decision during period5$25,516,158
Management decisions made during period:
--Amounts management agreed to put to better use1
--Amounts management disagreed to put to better use
No management decision at end of period5$19,026,543

  1. Includes instances where management has taken action to resolve the issue and/or the matter is being closed because remedial action was taken.

Audits With Questioned Costs
Audit ReportsNumber of
Audit Reports
Total Questioned
Costs (including
unsupported costs)
No management decision made by beginning of period31$41,052,842$7,183,781
Issued during period38$25,118,426$1,345,518
Needing management decision during period69$66,171,268$8,529,299
Management decisions made during period:
--Amount of disallowed costs 1
--Amount of costs not disallowed
No management decision at end of period33$26,395,750$2,212,447

  1. Includes instances where management has taken action to resolve the issue and/or the matter is being closed because remedial action was taken.

  2. Includes one report where management has agreed with some but not all of the reports' recommendations.

Audits Involving Recommendations for Management Improvements
Audit ReportsNumber of
Audit Reports
Total Number of
Management Improvements
No management decision made by beginning of period89175
Issued during period94268
Needing management decision during period183443
Management decisions made during period:
--Number management agreed to implement 1
--Number management disagreed with
No management decision at end of period78156

  1. Includes instances where management has taken action to resolve the issue and/or the matter is being closed because remedial action was taken.

  2. Includes two reports where management has agreed with some but not all of the reports' recommendations.