Skip navigation
CLN bookstore

Correctional Grants Audit of Navajo Division of Public Safety, DOJ, 2015

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
Office of the Inspector General
U.S. Department of Justice

Audit of the Office of

Justice Programs Correctional Systems

and Correctional Alternatives on Tribal 

Lands Program Grants Awarded to the

Navajo Division of Public Safety

Window Rock, Arizona


Audit Division GR-60-15-015

September 2015

This page left intentionally blank.

AUDIT OF THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

CORRECTIONAL SYSTEMS AND CORRECTIONAL ALTERNATIVES

ON TRIBAL LANDS PROGRAM GRANTS AWARDED TO THE

NAVAJO DIVISION OF PUBLIC SAFETY

WINDOW ROCK, ARIZONA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
completed an audit of grants awarded by the Office of Justice Programs (OJP),
Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), under the Correctional Systems and
Correctional Alternatives on Tribal Lands (CSCATL) Program to the Navajo Division
of Public Safety (NDPS), a department of the Navajo Nation, in Window Rock,
Arizona. 1
The objective of this audit was to determine whether costs claimed under the
grants were allowable, supported, and in accordance with applicable laws,
regulations, guidelines, and the terms and conditions of the grants. To accomplish
this objective, we assessed performance in the following areas of grant
management: financial management, expenditures, budget management and
control, drawdowns, federal financial reports, and program performance. The
criteria we audited against are contained in the OJP Financial Guide and the grant
award documents.
NDPS was awarded four grants totaling $70,542,837 to plan and construct
tribal justice facilities associated with the incarceration and rehabilitation of adult
offenders subject to tribal jurisdiction. Specifically, the amounts of the four grants
were to support the following four projects: (1) $150,000 for the planning and
design of a correctional facility in Dilkon, Arizona; (2) $150,000 for the planning
and design of a new correctional facility in Kayenta, Arizona; (3) approximately
$38.6 million to build a correctional facility in Tuba City, Arizona, to replace the
existing jail; and (4) approximately $31.7 million to build a multi-purpose justice
center in Kayenta, Arizona, to replace the existing jail.
As of January 2015, NDPS had drawn down $65,579,800 in grant funds,
although none of the awarded grants were fully expended. We examined NDPS
accounting records, financial and progress reports, and operating policies and
procedures and found that NDPS did not comply with essential award conditions
related to the use of funds, performance, and financial controls. Specifically, NDPS:
(1) did not check the suspension and debarment status of contractors paid with
grant funds; (2) incurred $656,921 in unsupported costs and $2,554,924 in
unallowable costs; (3) did not meet the $16,669 match requirement for one grant;
(4) did not expend $535,545 in awarded funds; (5) did not submit accurate Federal
1

This program was formerly referred to as the Correctional Facilities on Tribal Lands Program.

i

Financial Reports for three of the four grants; and (6) expended $290,116 in
unnecessary planning grants.
We further found that NDPS built correctional facilities in Tuba City and
Kayenta, Arizona with capacities that were at least 250 percent larger than needed,
at an excess cost of $32,034,623. In Tuba City, NDPS constructed a 132-bed
corrections facility with the $38.6 million grant, even though its March 2007 master
plan called for building a 48-bed corrections space at a cost of $18.2 million and
even though the average monthly jail occupancy for Tuba City from 2008 to 2014
was between 14 and 22 inmates, with a high of 49 inmates in July 2010. Similarly,
in Kayenta, NDPS built an 80-bed corrections facility and a police station with the
$31.7 million grant, even though its March 2007 master plan stated a need for a
32-bed facility and law enforcement area at a cost of $20.0 million and even though
the average monthly jail occupancy for Kayenta from 2008 through 2014 was
between 7 and 11 inmates, with a high of 24 inmates in December 2011.
As a result, based on the needs stated in the March 2007 master plan for
Tuba City and Kayenta, which were relied on in the grant applications, we
recommend that OJP remedy $32,034,623 in unallowable expenditures for building
sizes in excess of stated need.
The excessive size of both facilities also creates increased costs for
operations and maintenance staff, which are significantly funded by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA). Due to funding constraints, BIA told us they can only provide
40 percent of requested funding for tribal corrections officers, which would be about
25 of the 63 full-time employees needed to fully operate the Tuba City facility and
20 of the 51 full-time employees needed to fully operate the Kayenta facility. As a
result, there is an increased risk that the Tuba City and Kayenta facilities will not
become fully operational due to a lack of funding.
BJA was responsible for providing oversight of the awarded grants, including
reviewing semiannual progress reports for each grant and site visits to the
construction projects. Those progress reports indicated increases in bed space. In
addition to its own oversight activities, BJA contracted with a technical assistance
provider to assist it with ensuring that NDPS was implementing the construction
projects in the most cost effective and efficient manner. Despite these apparent
oversight efforts, the NDPS built facilities that were at least 250 percent larger than
needed at an excess cost of $32,034,623. We also found that NDPS does not have
the resources available to staff facilities of this size.
Our report contains nine recommendations to OJP. Our audit objective,
scope, and methodology are discussed in Appendix 1 and our Schedule of
Dollar-Related Findings appears in Appendix 2. In addition, we requested a
response to our draft audit report from NDPS and OJP, and their responses are
shown in Appendix 3 and 4.

ii

AUDIT OF THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

CORRECTIONAL SYSTEMS AND CORRECTIONAL ALTERNATIVES

ON TRIBAL LANDS PROGRAM GRANTS AWARDED TO THE

NAVAJO DIVISION OF PUBLIC SAFETY

WINDOW ROCK, ARIZONA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

Audit Approach ........................................................................................... 1

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................ 3

Grant Financial Management......................................................................... 3

Grant Expenditures ...................................................................................... 3

Direct Costs ............................................................................................. 4

Matching Costs ......................................................................................... 4

Budget Management and Control................................................................... 5

Drawdowns................................................................................................. 5

Federal Financial Reports.............................................................................. 6

Program Performance and Accomplishments ................................................... 7

Correctional Facility Planning Grants............................................................ 7

Correctional Facility Construction Grants ...................................................... 8

Categorical Assistance Progress Reports .................................................... 13

Conclusion ................................................................................................ 13

Recommendations ..................................................................................... 14

APPENDIX 1: OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY ................................... 16

APPENDIX 2: SCHEDULE OF DOLLAR-RELATED FINDINGS................................ 17

APPENDIX 3: OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS RESPONSE TO 

THE DRAFT REPORT ................................................................................. 19

APPENDIX 4: NAVAJO NATION RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT.................... 28

APPENDIX 5: OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ANALYSIS AND 

SUMMARY OF ACTIONS NECESSARY TO RESOLVE THE REPORT..................... 42


This page left intentionally blank.

AUDIT OF THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

CORRECTIONAL SYSTEMS AND CORRECTIONAL ALTERNATIVES

ON TRIBAL LANDS PROGRAM GRANTS AWARDED TO THE

NAVAJO DIVISION OF PUBLIC SAFETY

WINDOW ROCK, ARIZONA

INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
completed an audit of grants awarded by the Office of Justice Programs (OJP),
Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), under the Correctional Systems and
Correctional Alternatives on Tribal Lands (CSCATL) Program to the Navajo Division
of Public Safety (NDPS), a department of the Navajo Nation, in Window Rock,
Arizona. 1 NDPS was awarded four grants totaling $70,542,837, as shown in
Table 1.
Table 1

Grants Awarded to NDPS

AWARD NUMBER
2008-IP-BX-0036
2009-IP-BX-0074
2009-ST-B9-0089
2009-ST-B9-0100

AWARD DATE
09/15/08
09/03/09
09/21/09
09/21/09

PROJECT
START DATE
07/01/08
07/01/09
07/01/09
10/01/09

PROJECT
END DATE
12/31/14
06/30/13
06/30/14
03/31/15
Total:

AWARD
AMOUNT
$150,000
$150,000
$38,587,560
$31,655,277
$70,542,837

Source: OJP

Funding through the CSCATL Program supports efforts related to planning,
constructing, and renovating tribal justice facilities associated with the
incarceration and rehabilitation of juvenile and adult offenders subject to tribal
jurisdiction, including exploring community-based alternatives. In 2010, the
CSCATL Program was modified to allow the use of funds to construct
multi-purpose justice centers that combine tribal police, courts, and corrections
services. 2
Audit Approach
The objective of this audit was to determine whether costs claimed under
the grants were allowable, supported, and in accordance with applicable laws,
regulations, guidelines, and the terms and conditions of the grants. To
accomplish this objective, we assessed performance in the following areas of
1

This program was formerly referred to as the Correctional Facilities on Tribal Lands Program.

2

42 U.S.C. § 13709.

1


grant management: financial management, expenditures, budget management
and control, drawdowns, federal financial reports, and program performance.
We tested compliance with what we consider to be the most important
conditions of the grants. The criteria we audited against are contained in the
OJP Financial Guide and the award documents. The results of our analysis are
discussed in detail in the Findings and Recommendations section of the report.
Appendix 1 contains additional information on this audit’s objective, scope, and
methodology. The Schedule of Dollar-Related Findings appears in Appendix 2.

2


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
NDPS was awarded $70,542,837 under Grant Numbers 2008-IP-BX-0036,
2009-IP-BX-0074, 2009-ST-B9-0089, and 2009-ST-B9-0100 to plan and
construct tribal justice facilities associated with the incarceration and
rehabilitation of adult offenders subject to tribal jurisdiction. The objective of
Grant Number 2008-IP-BX-0036 was to plan and design a correctional facility in
Dilkon, Arizona. The objective of Grant Number 2009-IP-BX-0074 was to plan
and design a new correctional facility in Kayenta, Arizona. Grant Number
2009-ST-B9-0089 was awarded to build a new correctional facility in Tuba City,
Arizona. Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0100 was awarded to build a multi-purpose
justice center in Kayenta, Arizona.
Grant Financial Management
According to the OJP Financial Guide, all grant recipients and subrecipients
are required to establish and maintain adequate accounting systems and financial
records and to accurately account for funds awarded to them. We reviewed the
Single Audit Reports for Navajo Nation for fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013 to
identify any control weaknesses and significant non-compliance issues related to
NDPS. We also conducted interviews with financial staff and examined policies and
procedures to determine whether the grant financial management system NDPS
uses for the processing and payment of funds adequately safeguards grant funds
and ensured NDPS complied with the terms and conditions of the grants. The
Single Audit Reports identified issues with Navajo Nation management of federal
grants including the potential for Davis-Bacon Act noncompliance; lack of adequate
monitoring and reconciliation of accountable property, including grant-funded
property; risk of noncompliance with suspension and debarment requirements; and
inaccurate reporting. The inaccurate reporting findings were specifically related to
DOJ grants.
We identified weaknesses with NDPS management of the audited grants.
Specifically, the OJP Financial Guide requires grantees to avoid business with
debarred and suspended organizations. NDPS officials stated they required
contractors to self-certify that they were not suspended or debarred, but did not
verify that information. We recommend that OJP ensure that NDPS implements a
process to verify that recipients of DOJ funds are not suspended or debarred.
Grant Expenditures
For Grant Numbers 2008-IP-BX-0036 and 2009-IP-BX-0074, NDPS received
budget approval for planning costs, including contractual expenditures, and
matching costs including personnel and fringe benefits. NDPS received budget
approval for construction and travel costs for Grant Numbers 2009-ST-B9-0089 and
2009-ST-B9-0100. As discussed below, we tested a judgmental sample of
transactions from each audited grant to determine whether costs charged to the
awards were allowable, supported, and properly allocated in compliance with award
requirements. The following sections describe the results of that testing.
3


Direct Costs
The general ledger for Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089 indicated
274 transactions totaling $42,290,705. We tested 100 transactions totaling
$23,544,870 and found 5 unsupported transactions totaling $656,921 and
22 unallowable transactions totaling $1,906,592. 3 Unallowable transactions
included $528,082 for court relocation costs, $149,081 for two expenditures from
another construction project, $666,166 for 19 other non-grant expenditures, and 3
expenditures totaling $563,262 that were paid or incurred before NDPS received
environmental clearance from OJP for the project on June 2, 2010. 4
The general ledger for Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0100 indicated 300
transactions totaling $33,973,568. We tested 110 transactions totaling
$25,310,209 and found evidence of 20 unallowable transactions totaling $648,332.
These transactions were unallowable because they were paid or incurred before
NDPS received environmental clearance from OJP for the project on June 6, 2011.4
Matching Costs
When testing grant expenditures, we also assessed matching expenditures
applied to the audited grants and determined the accuracy, support, and
allowability of expenditures with matching funds. To accomplish this we reviewed
matching requirements for each grant.
Grant Number 2008-IP-BX-0036 was originally awarded with a 10-percent
match requirement of $16,669. However, on June 18, 2013, OJP removed the
match requirement from the grant budget by a Grant Adjustment Notice (GAN).
Grant Number 2009-IP-BX-0074 was awarded with a 10-percent match
requirement of $16,669. Based on our review of NDPS accounting records, no
match was recorded for this grant. NDPS officials stated they requested a waiver of
the match requirement for the grant, but could not provide OJP approval of the
waiver. NDPS officials also provided timesheets as support for the matching
requirement for this grant. However, the timesheets provided did not contain
sufficient detail regarding dollar amounts, employee names and activity, or
supervisory approval, to support the match requirement for this grant. We
determined the additional documentation provided by NDPS was not adequate to
support the matching requirement for this grant. Therefore, we recommend that
OJP remedy the $16,669 in matching funds not allocated to the grant project.

3

Includes three transactions with duplicated questioned costs of $199,176. Those questioned
costs were duplicated because the transactions included non-grant expenditures and also occurred
before NDPS received environmental clearance for the project.
4

Special Condition 9 of the grant award states “the recipient may not obligate, expend, or
draw down any funds until the program office has verified that the recipient has submitted all
necessary documentation required to comply with Department of Justice Environmental Impact Review
Procedures.”

4


Grant No. 2009-ST-B9-0100 was awarded with a 10-percent match
requirement of $3,517,253. NDPS accounted for the match requirement by
allocating 10 percent of each month’s expenditures to the match. At the time of
this audit, the total match allocation was $2,653,852, which was less than
10 percent of the $33,973,568 in total expenditures. However, NDPS had until the
grant end date of March 31, 2015, to satisfy the match requirement. We
recommend that OJP ensure NDPS meets the match requirement by the end of the
grant.
We did not identify any exceptions for Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089.
Based on our transaction testing, we recommend that OJP remedy $656,921
in unsupported questioned costs, $2,554,924 in unallowable questioned costs, and
$16,669 in unallocated matching costs related to expenditures prohibited by grant
special conditions and non-grant expenditures charged to the OJP grants.
Budget Management and Control
According to the OJP Financial Guide, the recipient is responsible for
establishing and maintaining an adequate accounting system, which includes the
ability to compare actual expenditures or outlays with budgeted amounts for each
award. Additionally, the grant recipient must initiate a GAN for a budget
modification that reallocates funds among budget categories if the proposed
cumulative change is greater than 10 percent of the total award amount.
For Grant Numbers 2008-IP-BX-0036 and 2009-IP-BX-0074, we compared
grant expenditures to the approved budgets to determine whether NDPS
transferred funds among budget categories in excess of 10 percent. We
determined that the cumulative difference between category expenditures and
approved budget category totals was not greater than 10 percent.
Since Grant Numbers 2009-ST-B9-0089 and 2009-ST-B9-0100 were
designated as construction grants, we determined that the NDPS was required to
follow 28 CFR 66.30(c). According to 28 CFR 66.30(c), construction grants to state
and local governments do not require grantees to request approval for any
deviations from the budget unless additional grant funds are necessary. As a
result, we found that the 10-percent rule does not apply.
Drawdowns
According to the OJP Financial Guide, an adequate accounting system should
be established to maintain documentation to support all receipts of federal funds.
If, at the end of the grant award, recipients have drawn down funds in excess of
federal expenditures, unused funds must be returned to the awarding agency.
NDPS made drawdowns as reimbursements, but did not appear to make drawdowns
using a schedule or any specific methodology. To assess whether NDPS managed
grant receipts in accordance with federal requirements, we compared the total
amount reimbursed to the total expenditures in the accounting records. As shown
5


in Table 2, at the time of the last drawdown, total drawdowns did not exceed total
expenditures for any of the four grants.
Table 2

Drawdowns by Grant

AWARD NUMBER

2008-IP-BX-0036
2009-IP-BX-0074
2009-ST-B9-0089
2009-ST-B9-0100

AWARD
AMOUNT

$150,000
$150,000
$38,587,560
$31,655,277

DATE OF
LAST
DRAWDOWN

TOTAL
DRAWDOWNS 5

12/24/13
10/03/13
10/03/14
04/22/14
Total:

$27,839
$149,736
$38,061,635
$27,340,590
$65,579,800

TOTAL GRANT
EXPENDITURES 6

$37,459
$149,736
$38,061,635
$28,241,748
$66,490,578

FUNDS NOT
DRAWN DOWN

$122,161
$264
$525,925
$4,314,687
$4,963,037

Source: OJP and NDPS

As shown in Table 2, for three of the four grants, the NDPS had not drawn
down grant funds within 90 days of the grant expiration date as required by the OJP
Financial Guide. Specifically, for Grant Number 2008-IP-BX-0036, $122,161 of the
$150,000 grant was not drawn down as of January 20, 2015, despite a grant end
date of December 31, 2014. NDPS had 90 days after the grant end date to draw
down funds, and OJP provided documentation of NDPS drawdowns of $109,363 on
March 6, 2015, and $3,178 on April 1, 2015; an unobligated balance of $9,620
remained. For Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089, $525,925 in unobligated grant
funds remained as of January 20, 2015, despite a grant end date of June 30, 2014.
We recommend that OJP remedy the $535,545 in funds to better use for Grant
Numbers 2008-IP-BX-0036 and 2009-ST-B9-0089.
Federal Financial Reports
According to the OJP Financial Guide, recipients shall report the actual
expenditures and unliquidated obligations incurred for the reporting period on each
financial report. To determine whether Federal Financial Reports (FFR) submitted
by NDPS were accurate, we compared the four most recent reports to NDPS
accounting records for each grant.

5

Total drawdowns as of January 20, 2015.

6

Total expenditures as of date of last drawdown.

6


Table 3

FFR Analysis

REPORT
PERIOD
FROM
DATES

REPORT
NUMBER

2008-IP-BX-0036
23
01/01/14
24
04/01/14
25
07/01/14
26
10/01/14
2009-IP-BX-0074
13
07/01/12
14
10/01/12
15
01/01/13
16
04/01/13
2009-ST-B9-0089
17
07/01/13
18
10/01/13
19
01/01/14
20
04/01/14
2009-ST-B9-0100
17
10/01/13
18
01/01/14
19
04/01/14
20
07/01/14

CUMULATIVE
EXPENDITURES
PER
ACCOUNTING
RECORDS

REPORT
PERIOD
TO DATES

PERIODIC
EXPENDITURES
PER FFR

CUMULATIVE
EXPENDITURES
PER FFR

03/31/14
06/30/14
09/30/14
12/31/14

$0
$0
$0
$0

$27,839
$27,839
$27,839
$27,839

$37,459
$37,459
$37,459
$146,822

$9,620
$9,620
$9,620
$118,983

09/30/12
12/31/12
03/31/13
06/30/13

$19,974
$4,971
$4,034
$2,658

$138,074
$143,045
$147,079
$149,736

$138,074
$143,045
$147,079
$149,736

$0
$0
$0
$0

09/30/13
12/31/13
03/31/14
06/30/14

$12,162
$1,831,956
$0
$2,152,752

$34,076,927
$35,908,882
$35,908,882
$38,061,635

$36,096,382
$36,096,382
$36,096,382
$36,371,661

$2,019,456
$187,500
$187,500
($1,689,974)

12/31/13
03/31/14
06/30/14
09/30/14

$3,143,164
$5,473,428
$580,136
$247,697

$21,867,162
$27,340,590
$27,920,726
$28,168,423

$24,971,770
$28,241,748
$30,096,923
$30,344,619

$3,104,608
$901,158
$2,176,197
$2,176,197

CUMULATIVE
DIFFERENCE

Source: OJP and NDPS

For three of the four grants, none of the four most recent FFRs were accurate
to Navajo Nation accounting records. For Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089, the
cumulative difference appeared to be due to timing, as there were subsequent
general ledger entries that matched the shortage amount. For Grant Numbers
2008-IP-BX-0036 and 2009-ST-B9-0100, the discrepancies between the FFRs and
accounting records did not appear to be due to timing, as we were unable to
identify nearby expenditures in the accounting records that would offset the
discrepancies. However, we did note that at the end of each fiscal year, Navajo
Nation’s financial department frequently used adjusting entries to move expenses
into the following fiscal year, which could have an effect on data provided for the
FFR periods immediately before and after the fiscal year end date. 7 We recommend
that OJP ensure that NDPS implements a process to submit FFRs that accurately
reflect expenditures for each reporting period.
Program Performance and Accomplishments
Correctional Facility Planning Grants
Grant Number 2008-IP-BX-0036, in the amount of $150,000, was awarded 

to NDPS on September 15, 2008, to plan and design a correctional facility in

7

Navajo Nation’s fiscal year ends September 30.

7


Tuba City, Arizona. Grant Number 2009-IP-BX-0074, in the amount of $150,000,
was awarded on September 3, 2009, to plan and design a correctional facility in
Kayenta, Arizona.
For Grant Number 2008-IP-BX-0036, NDPS subsequently requested and
received a GAN to repurpose this grant to plan a correctional facility in Dilkon,
Arizona, because Navajo Nation had recently completed a master plan for the
Tuba City facility. That master plan, dated March 2007, was completed prior to the
award of both planning grants and provided details for 13 judicial/public safety
facilities across the Navajo Nation, including correctional square footages, specific
rooms and work areas, prototype layouts, number of jail beds needed, and project
budgets. The March 2007 master plan included facilities in Tuba City, Dilkon, and
Kayenta. Because the NDPS already had a master plan in place for the correctional
facilities in Tuba City, Dilkon, and Kayenta, in our opinion the 2008 and 2009
planning grants awarded to NDPS for the development of master plans for these
facilities were unnecessary. Therefore, in addition to the $9,620 previously
questioned as funds to better use, we are questioning the total amount of $140,380
drawn down for Grant Number 2008-IP-BX-0036, and the total amount of $149,736
drawn down for Grant Number 2009-IP-BX-0074 as unallowable. We recommend
that OJP remedy $290,116 in unallowable expenditures for unnecessary planning
grants.
Correctional Facility Construction Grants
Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089, in the amount of $38,587,560, was
awarded to NDPS on September 21, 2009, to fund construction of a new
correctional facility in Tuba City, Arizona, which replaced the existing jail. Grant
Number 2009-ST-B9-0100, in the amount of $31,655,277, was also awarded to
NDPS on September 21, 2009, to fund construction of a new multi-purpose justice
center in Kayenta, Arizona, to replace the existing jail.
According to Navajo Nation’s Operational and Space Program (Program) for
the new Tuba City facility, the existing jail had a maximum capacity of 34 people
from 2004 to 2009. 8 The Program stated that on average, 18 adult arrests and
1 juvenile arrest were made per day in 2009, although law enforcement officers
were reluctant to make arrests due to jail space limitations. It also identified a
significant decrease in calls for service from 2005 to 2008. 9 According to BIA data,
monthly jail occupancy reported for Tuba City from 2008 through 2014 ranged from
a low of 2 in October 2014, to a high of 49 in July 2010; from 2008 to 2014,
average monthly occupancy ranged between 14 and 22 inmates. 10 Navajo Nation’s
8

Navajo Nation Large District Justice Center Operation and Space Program, Tuba City, AZ,
October 1, 2009 (updated March 14, 2011).
9

For calls to the Tuba City police dispatch for any type of complaint, there was a 54-percent
decrease from 2005 to 2007, offset slightly by a 9-percent increase in service calls from 2007 to 2008.
10

Occupancy counts represent total inmates confined within a calendar month. Daily
occupancy rates were not provided.

8


March 2007 master plan stated the new Tuba City facility should follow the “Large
District Judicial/Public Safety Facilities Prototype Space Program,” which planned for
a 107,036 square foot (SF) multipurpose facility that included corrections, court,
law enforcement, and peacemaking spaces, including 48 inmate beds.
As shown in Table 4, the March 2007 master plan stated an anticipated total
project budget of $36,927,253 for a 107,036 SF multipurpose facility at Tuba City.
After construction, the judicial, law enforcement, and peacemaking spaces were
built 2,724 SF smaller than needed per the master plan, and $2,626,711 less than
budgeted. 11 However, the corrections space was expanded from 52,790 SF to
87,709 SF, inmate beds increased from 48 to 132, and the corrections space cost
increased by $25,398,705.
Table 4

Tuba City Justice Center—Planned Size vs. Built Size

FUNCTIONAL
AREA

13

Corrections
Courts/Law
Enforcement
Total:

SIZE PER
MASTER
PLAN (SF)

52,790

14

ACTUAL
SIZE (SF)

87,709

DIFFERENCE
(SF)

COST PER
MASTER PLAN

12

ACTUAL COST

DIFFERENCE

34,919

$18,212,326

$43,611,031

$25,398,705

54,246

51,522

(2,724)

$18,714,927

$16,088,216

($2,626,711)

107,036

139,231

32,195

$36,927,253

$59,599,247

$22,771,994

Source: NDPS

In its grant application, NDPS applied for the Tuba City construction grant
based upon the total facility sizes, functions, and budgets stated in its March 2007
master plan. The Tuba City application stated NDPS intended to build a 111,848 SF
facility that increased the number of jail beds. NDPS then built the court and law
enforcement buildings using a bank loan, and funded the correctional facility
through Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089. However, rather than follow the March
2007 master plan, which allocated about $18,212,326 to build a 48-bed corrections
space, the NDPS built a 132-bed corrections facility with the $38,587,560 grant.
From February 2010 to February 2014, NDPS submitted progress reports to OJP
11
Construction of the Tuba City judicial, law enforcement, and peacemaking functional areas
was funded by a bank loan and not funded by Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089.
12

plan.

Calculated at $345 per square foot using data provided in the NDPS March 2007 master

13

The March 2007 master plan indicated that correctional spaces and shared building
functions were budgeted at $19,872,633, and the entire facility (correctional, court, law enforcement,
and peacekeeping space) was budgeted at $38,587,560 for a 111,848 SF facility; however,
$1,660,307 was budgeted twice for 4,813 SF of building entrance and lobby spaces, resulting in an
actual budget of $18,212,326 for Tuba City’s correctional spaces and $36,927,253 for the entire
facility.
14

Total includes 26,346 square feet of jail space and 31,256 square feet of building space
shared by all functional areas (building entrances, lobbies, conference rooms, staff areas, visitation
space, and building infrastructure spaces); we determined these spaces to be integral to the building
and therefore inseparable from the Corrections functional area. The total also accounts for the 4,813
SF of duplicated spaces discussed above.

9


that referenced the March 2007 master plan, but gradually increased the
corrections component from 48 beds, to 62 beds, to 132 beds. Neither OJP nor
NDPS officials could provide us with documentation approving a change in size for
the Tuba City corrections building. NDPS grant records included documents that
stated the corrections building size was increased due to receipt of the grant. As a
result, based on the needs stated in NDPS March 2007 master plan and the facility
that was actually constructed, we are questioning $20,375,234 related to the
larger-than-planned building constructed under Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089. 15
Kayenta’s existing jail had two cells that could hold up to 30 people. A March
2012 Navajo Nation report stated that the Kayenta district’s population decreased
by 4.4 percent from 2000 to 2010, and calls for service decreased by an average
annual rate of 7.2 percent from 2006 to 2010. According to BIA data, monthly jail
occupancy reported for Kayenta from 2008 through 2014 ranged from a low of 0 in
September and October 2011, to a high of 24 in December 2011; from 2008 to
2014, average monthly occupancy ranged between 7 and 11 inmates. 16 Navajo
Nation’s March 2007 master plan stated the new Kayenta facility should follow the
“Medium District Judicial/Public Safety Facilities Prototype Space Program,” which
planned for an 86,224 SF multipurpose facility that included corrections, court, law
enforcement, and peacemaking spaces, including 32 inmate beds.
As shown in Table 5, the March 2007 master plan stated a total project
budget of $29,747,112 for an 86,224 SF multipurpose facility at Kayenta. Judicial
and peacemaking spaces were planned at 28,625 SF but were not built. Law
enforcement spaces were planned at 10,232 SF, but 13,427 SF was built for law
enforcement use, which was 3,195 SF more than needed per the master plan and
cost $2,420,197 more than budgeted in the master plan. The corrections space
was expanded from 47,727 SF to 54,455 SF, and inmate beds increased from 32 to
80. NDPS built a larger correctional space at Kayenta than the master plan stated
was needed, which increased the size of the corrections function by 6,728 SF and
increased its cost by $8,404,192.

15
The March 2007 master plan indicated that correctional spaces and shared building
functions were budgeted at $18,212,326; subtracting that amount from the grant award of
$38,587,560 results in an unallowable cost of $20,375,234 that was used to build a larger than
planned facility.
16

Occupancy counts represent total inmates confined within a calendar month. Daily
occupancy rates were not provided.

10


Table 5

Kayenta Justice Center—Planned Size vs. Built Size

FUNCTIONAL
AREA

18

Corrections
Law
Enforcement
Courts/
Peacemaking
Total:

SIZE PER
MASTER
PLAN

ACTUAL
SIZE
(SF)

DIFFERENCE

6,728

$16,465,885

10,232

13,427

3,195

$3,530,002

28,265

- 20

(28,265)

$9,751,225

21

$29,747,112

47,727

19

86,224

54,455

67,882

COST PER

(18,342)

MASTER PLAN

17

ACTUAL COST

$24,870,077
$5,950,199
$30,820,276

DIFFERENCE

$8,404,192
$2,420,197

($9,751,225)
$1,073,164

Source: NDPS

Similarly, in its grant application, NDPS indicated that it was using the March
2007 master plan, which stated a need for a 32-bed facility in Kayenta. However,
the application also stated the project would provide 60 new beds. Rather than
follow the March 2007 master plan for the Kayenta facility, which allocated about
$19,995,888 to build a 32-bed corrections space and law enforcement areas, NDPS
built an 80-bed corrections building and a police station with the $31,655,277
grant. NDPS officials stated the increased correctional facility size was due to a
planning study completed on March 27, 2012. However, that planning study was
completed two and a half years after the Kayenta construction grant was awarded,
5 and 11 months after the start of site grading and construction management,
respectively, and over a year after NDPS started the re-design of the corrections
facility to 80 adult beds in January 2011. Neither OJP nor NDPS officials could
provide us with documentation approving a change in adult bed space for the
Kayenta corrections building. As a result, based on the needs stated in the March
2007 master plan and the facility that was actually constructed, we are questioning

17

plan.

Calculated at $345 per square foot using data provided in the NDPS March 2007 master

18

The March 2007 master plan indicated that correctional spaces, law enforcement spaces,
and shared building functions were budgeted at $21,656,195, and the entire facility (correctional,
court, law enforcement, and peacekeeping space) was budgeted at $31,407,420 for a 91,036 SF
facility; however, $1,660,308 was budgeted twice for 4,813 SF of building entrance and lobby spaces,
resulting in an actual budget of $19,995,888 for Kayenta’s correctional and law enforcement spaces
and $29,747,112 for the entire facility.
19

Amount includes 23,759 square feet of jail space and 28,781 square feet of building space
shared by all functional areas (building entrances, lobbies, conference rooms, staff areas, visitation
space, and building infrastructure spaces); we determined these spaces to be integral to the building
and therefore inseparable from the Corrections functional area. The total also accounts for the 4,813
SF of duplicated spaces discussed above.
20

Corrections, court and law enforcement spaces were specified in the March 2007 master
plan, but only corrections and law enforcement spaces were built at Kayenta.
21

Differences in the total amounts in the tables in the report are due to rounding. The sum
of individual numbers prior to rounding may differ from the sum of the individual numbers rounded.

11


$11,659,389 related to the larger than planned building constructed under Grant
Number 2009-ST-B9-0100. 22
When we informed NDPS officials of our findings related to the excessive
building sizes at Tuba City and Kayenta, they provided us with a 2005 NDPS
Department of Corrections comprehensive plan that stated Tuba City needed
152 adult beds and space for 24 juveniles, and Kayenta needed 104 adult beds and
space for 24 juveniles. However, that plan also provided options to close the Tuba
City jail and lease bed space at other correctional facilities, or to use a 16-bed
modular facility at Tuba City and the same at Kayenta. Additionally, NDPS officials
told us that the Navajo Nation tribal council thought the building sizes stated in the
2005 plan were too large, which led to creation of the March 2007 master plan that
was used to build NDPS justice centers and to apply for the construction grants.
We reviewed the additional documentation and determined it was not related to the
construction grants, as the applications and progress reports for each grant only
referenced the March 2007 master plan. Overall, for these construction grants we
recommend that OJP remedy $32,034,623 in unallowable expenditures for building
sizes in excess of stated need.
The excessive size of both facilities will also create increased costs for
operations and maintenance staff, which are significantly funded by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA). At the time of this audit, the Tuba City facility had staff to
support 2 housing units and NDPS officials stated they needed to hire 16 more
people before another housing unit could be staffed. The March 2007 master plan
stated a need for eight corrections staff at each facility. An August 2010 OJP site
visit report stated that Tuba City had 12 correctional officers for its existing jail, and
planned to hire 51 additional officers when the new facility was completed. BIA
officials stated they expressed concerns to the BJA and Navajo Nation officials
regarding the large size of the Tuba City correctional facility, but BJA did not object
to the size and Navajo Nation stated it was part of the Navajo Nation’s master plan.
Additionally, a February 2012 OJP site visit report stated that Kayenta had
8 correctional officers and 1 supervisor for its existing jail, and would need a total of
51 full-time employees when the new facility was completed. BIA officials stated
they had concerns about staffing for the Kayenta correctional facility, because the
Kayenta district does not have the population to support the jail size. BIA stated
they had suggested to the BJA Crownpoint and Shiprock as alternative locations to
build facilities to house Kayenta inmates. 23 Currently, due to funding constraints,
BIA can only provide 40 percent of requested funding for tribal corrections officers,
which would be about 25 of the 63 full-time employees stated for Tuba City and
22
The March 2007 master plan indicated that correctional spaces, law enforcement spaces,
and shared building functions were budgeted at $19,995,888; subtracting that amount from the grant
award of $31,655,277 results in an unallowable cost of $11,659,389 that was used to build a larger
than planned facility.
23

Construction of a correctional facility funded by the Navajo Nation and BIA was completed
in Crownpoint in 2013 and a new correctional facility is planned for Shiprock starting in 2016.

12


20 of the 51 full-time employees stated for Kayenta in the OJP site visit reports. As
a result, there is an increased risk that the Tuba City and Kayenta facilities will not
become fully operational due to a lack of funding.
While we determined that NDPS constructed the Tuba City and Kayenta
correctional facilities in excess of need, as documented in the March 2007 master
plan, we also noted that BJA was responsible for providing oversight of the grant
funding for those construction projects. BJA possessed a copy of the March 2007
master plan and conducted site visits of the Tuba City and Kayenta correctional
facility projects in 2010 and 2012. BJA also contracted with Alpha Corporation &
Engineering (Alpha Corp) to provide technical assistance services to assist BJA with
ensuring that grantees were implementing projects in the most cost effective and
efficient manner and meeting proposed projects timelines. Alpha Corp was required
to provide quarterly reports to BJA about projects it assisted. For the Tuba City and
Kayenta projects, Alpha Corp provided direct technical assistance to NDPS, by
phone and with site visits. Additionally, BJA received semiannual progress reports
from NDPS for each project. As previously noted, those progress reports indicated
increases in bed space. We also learned during this audit that NDPS does not have
the resources available to staff facilities of this size. BJA was therefore in
possession of information that allowed for comprehensive oversight, yet the
construction projects still resulted in significant excess capacity and questionable
use of grant funds. 24
Categorical Assistance Progress Reports
According to the OJP Financial Guide, progress reports are prepared twice a
year and are used to describe performance of activities or the accomplishment of
objectives as set forth in the award application. Progress reports must be
submitted within 30 days of the end of the reporting periods, which are June 30 and
December 31. Therefore, progress reports are due semi-annually on January 30
and July 30 for the life of the award.
To determine whether the progress reports submitted by the NDPS
accurately reflected the activity of the grants, we performed testing of some of the
accomplishments described in the last two Categorical Assistance Progress Reports
for each grant. We did not identify significant discrepancies with accomplishments
described in the progress reports.
Conclusion
The objective of this audit was to determine whether costs claimed under the
grants were allowable, supported, and in accordance with applicable laws,
regulations, guidelines, and terms and conditions. We examined NDPS accounting
records, budget documents, financial and progress reports, and financial
management procedures. We found that NDPS had internal control weaknesses
24

We intend to discuss the matter of BJA monitoring of grantees in a separate, forthcoming
audit report assessing related oversight activities by OJP and BJA.

13


related to suspension and debarment checks, incurred $656,921 in unsupported
costs and $2,554,924 in unallowable costs, did not meet the $16,669 match
requirement for one grant, did not expend $535,545 in awarded funds, did not
submit accurate Federal Financial Reports for three of the four grants, expended
$290,116 for two unnecessary planning grants, and expended $32,034,623 with
grant funds to build correctional facilities with capacities that were at least
250-percent larger than planned.
We made nine recommendations to improve NDPS management of awards.
Recommendations
We recommend that OJP:
1.	 Ensure that NDPS implements a process to verify that recipients of DOJ funds
are not suspended or debarred.
2.	 Remedy $656,921 in unsupported questioned costs for Grant Number 

2009-ST-B9-0089.

3.	 Remedy $2,554,924 in unallowable questioned costs associated with the
following issues:
a.	 Remedy $528,082 in grant reimbursements expended on court relocation
costs charged to Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089.
b. Remedy $815,248 in grant reimbursements for non-grant expenditures
charged to Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089.
c.	 Remedy $563,262 in grant reimbursements for expenditures that
occurred prior to environmental clearance for Grant Number
2009-ST-B9-0089.
d. Remedy $648,332 in grant reimbursements for expenditures that
occurred prior to environmental clearance for Grant Number
2009-ST-B9-0100.
4.	 Remedy $16,669 in unallocated matching costs for Grant Number 

2009-IP-BX-0074.

5.	 Ensure NDPS meets the match requirement for Grant Number 

2009-ST-B9-0100 by the end of the grant.

6.	 Remedy $535,545 in funds to better use associated with unexpended grant
funds:
a.	 Remedy $9,620 in funds to better use for Grant Number 

2008-IP-BX-0036

14


b. Remedy $525,925 in funds to better use for Grant Number 

2009-ST-B9-0089.

7.	 Ensure that NDPS implements a process to submit FFRs that accurately
reflect expenditures for each reporting period.
8.	 Remedy $290,116 in unallowable expenditures associated with unnecessary
planning grants:
a.	 Remedy $140,380 for Grant Number 2008-IP-BX-0036.
b. Remedy $149,736 for Grant Number 2009-IP-BX-0074.
9.	 Remedy $32,034,623 in unallowable expenditures associated with excessive
building sizes:
a.	 Remedy $20,375,234 for Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089.
b. Remedy $11,659,389 for Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0100.

15


This page left intentionally blank.

APPENDIX 1
OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
The objective of this audit was to determine whether costs claimed under
the grants were allowable, supported, and in accordance with applicable laws,
regulations, guidelines, and terms and conditions of the grants. To accomplish
this objective, we assessed performance in the following areas of grant
management: financial management, expenditures, budget management and
control, drawdowns, federal financial reports, and program performance.
We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our audit objectives.
This was an audit of the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Bureau of Justice
Assistance (BJA), grants awarded to the Navajo Division of Public Safety (NDPS)
under the Correctional Systems and Correctional Alternatives on Tribal Lands
(CSCATL) Program. NDPS was awarded $70,542,837 under Grant Numbers
2008-IP-BX-0036, 2009-IP-BX-0074, 2009-ST-B9-0089, and 2009-ST-B9-0100.
Our audit concentrated on, but was not limited to September 15, 2008, the award
date for Grant Number 2008-IP-BX-0036, through February 13, 2015, the last day
of our fieldwork. At the time of our audit, Grant Numbers 2008-IP-BX-0036,
2009-IP-BX-0074, and 2009-ST-B9-0089 were ended, but none of the grants were
fully drawn down.
To accomplish our objective, we tested compliance with what we consider to
be the most important conditions of NDPS activities related to the audited grants.
We performed sample-based audit testing for grant expenditures, financial reports,
and progress reports. In this effort, we employed a judgmental sampling design to
obtain broad exposure to numerous facets of the grant reviewed, such as unique
payroll and fringe benefits adjustments throughout the year. This non-statistical
sample design did not allow projection of the test results to the universe from which
the samples were selected. Unless otherwise stated in our report, the criteria we
audit against are contained in the OJP Financial Guide and the award documents.
In addition, we evaluated NDPS (1) grant financial management, including
grant-related procedures in place for financial status reports, progress reports,
procurement, and contractor monitoring; (2) budget management and controls;
(3) drawdowns, and (4) program performance.
During our audit, we obtained information from OJP’s Grant Management
System (GMS) as well as the NDPS accounting system specific to the management
of DOJ funds during the audit period. We did not test the reliability of those
systems as a whole. Any findings related to information received from those
systems were verified with documentation from other sources.
16


This page left intentionally blank.

APPENDIX 2
SCHEDULE OF DOLLAR-RELATED FINDINGS
QUESTIONED COSTS 25

AMOUNT

PAGE

$528,082

4

Non-Grant Expenditures
Non-Compliance with Special Condition 9 (Grant
Number 2009-ST-B9-0089)
Non-Compliance with Special Condition 9 (Grant
Number 2009-ST-B9-0100)

815,248

4

563,262

4

648,332

4

Unnecessary Grant (Grant Number 2008-IP-BX-0036)

140,380

8

Unnecessary Grant (Grant Number 2009-IP-BX-0074)

149,736

8

Unallowable Costs
Court Relocation Costs

Excessive Building Size (Tuba City)

20,375,234

10

Excessive Building Size (Kayenta)

11,659,389

11

Total Unallowable Costs

$34,879,663

Unsupported Costs
Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089

$656,921

Total Unsupported Costs

4

$656,921

Unallocated Matching Costs
Grant Number 2009-IP-BX-0074

$16,669

Total Unallocated Matching Costs

$16,669

GROSS QUESTIONED COSTS
Less Duplicative Costs

4

$35,553,253

26

$199,176

NET QUESTIONED COSTS

4

$35,354,077

25
Questioned Costs are expenditures that do not comply with legal, regulatory, or
contractual requirements; are not supported by adequate documentation at the time of the audit; or
are unnecessary or unreasonable. Questioned costs may be remedied by offset, waiver, recovery of
funds, or the provision of supporting documentation.
26

Some costs were questioned for more than one reason. Net questioned costs exclude the
duplicate amount, which include three transactions for non-grant expenditures that also occurred
before environmental clearance was received for Grant No. 2009-ST-B9-0089.

17


Funds to Better Use
Grant Number 2008-IP-BX-0036

$9,620

6

Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089
Total Funds to Better Use

525,925
$535,545

6

TOTAL DOLLAR RELATED FINDINGS

$35,889,622

18


APPENDIX 3
OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS
RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT 27
U.S. Department of Justice
Office ofJustice Programs
Office of Audit, Assessment, and Managemenl

w",hl"il/". o c. 205J I

AUG 24 201\

MEMORAND UM TO:

David M. Sheeren
Rt:gional Audit Manager
Denver Regional Audit Office
Office of the Inspector General

FROM:

RalphE~

SUBJECT:

Response to the Draft Audit RefXlrt. Audit oflhe Office ofJustice
Programs, Correctional Systems and Correctional Allernalives on
Tribal Lands Program, Grants Awarded 10 the Navajo Divi~ion of
Public Safety, Window Rock, Arizona

_ _'

Dj~

nus memorandum is in reference to your corresrondence, dated June 16, 2015, transmitting the
above-referenced draft audit refXlrt for the Navajo Division of Public Safety (NDPS), a
department of the Navajo Nation, in Window Rock, Arizona. We consider the subject report
resolved and request writtcn acceptance of this action from your office.
The draft report contains nine recommendations and $35,354,077' in net questioned costs, and
$535,545 in funds to better use. The following is the Office of Justice Programs' (OJP) analysis
of the draft audit report recommendations. For ease of review, the recommendations are restated
in bold and are followed by our response.
1.

We recommend that OJP ensure that JliDPS implements a process to verify that
recipients of DOJ fund s are not suspended or debarred.
OJP agrees with the recommendation. However, NDPS also provided OlP wi th a copy of
its July 20, 2015 response to the draft audit report. In its response, NDPS provided a copy
of written procedures implemented to enSLlre that recipient~ of U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ) funds are not suspended or debarred (see Attachment I ). These procedures
appear to sufficiently address the recommendation. Accordingly, the Oflice of Justice
Programs requests closure of this recommendation.

J

27

Some ccsts were questioned for more than one reason. Net questioned

COSIS

exclude the duplicate amounts.

Attachments to this response were not included in this final report.

19


2.

We recommend that O.JP remedy the $656,92 1 in unsupported questioned costs for
Grant Numbe r 2009-ST~89-0089.
OJP agrees with the recommendation. We will coordinate with NDP$ to remedy thc
$656,92 1 in questi oned co~ts, related to unsupported direct expenditures that were charged
to Grant Number 2009-ST -89-0089.

3.

We recommend that OJP remedy the $2,554,924 in unallowable questioned costs
associated with the following issues:
a.

$528,082 in grant reimbursements expended on court relocation costs charged
to Grant Number 2009-ST-89-0089.

OJP agrees with this part of the re<:ommendation. We will coordinate with NDPS
to remedy the $528,082 in questioned costs, related to court re location
expenditures that were charged to Grant Number 2009-8T-B9-0089.

b.

5815)48 in grant reimbursements for non-grant expenditures charged to

Grant Number 2009-ST-89-0089.

OJP agrees with this part of the recommendation. We will coordinate wi th ND PS
to remedy the $815,248 in que~1i oned costs, related to non-grant expenditures that
were charged to Grant Number 2009-8T -B9-0089.

c.

$563)62 in grant reimburscments for expenditures that occurred prior 10
environmental clearance for Grant Number 2009-8T·89-0089.
OJP agrce~ with this part of the recommendation. We wi!! coordinate with NDP8
to remedy the $563,262 in questioned costs, related to grant reimbursemenL~ for
expenditures that occurred prior to removal of the environmental clearance special
condition under Grant Number
2009·8T·89-0089.

d.

$648,332 in grant reimbursements for expenditures that occurred prior to
envi ronm ental clearance for G rant Number 2009·ST-K9..o100.
OJP agrees with this part of the recommendation. We will coordinate with NDPS
to remedy the $648,332 in questioned costs, related to grant reimbursements for
expenditures that occurred prior to removal of the environmental clearance special
condition under Grant Number 2009-8T·B9·0 100.

4.

We recommend that O.rr remedy the $16,669 in unallocated matching costs for
Grant Num ber 2009-IP-8X-0074.
OJP agrees with the recommendation. We will coordinate with NDPS to remedy the
$[6,669 in unallocated matching costs charged to Omnt Number2009·IP-BX-0074.

2

20


5.

We recommend that OJP ensure that NI)PS meets the match requirement for Grant
Number 2009-8T-89-0100 by tbe end of the grant.
OJP agrees with the recommendation. We will coordinate with NOP8 10 ensure that the
matching requirements, under Grant Number 2009·81'-89-0100. arc met by the end oflhe
award period.

6.

We recommcnd that OJP remedy the $535,545 in funds to better use
unexpended grant funds:
a.

as.~uciated

with

Rcmedy $9,620 in funds to better use for Grant Number 2008-tP-8X-0036.
OJP agrees with this part of the recommendation. On June 17, 2015, OJP
deobtigated the " 9,620 in undrawn granl funds that had expired for Grant Nrunber
2008-IP-BX-0036 (see Attachment 2).

b.

Remedy $525,925 in funds to better use for Grant Number 2009-8T-89-0089.
OJP agrees with this part of the recom.mendation. On June 23, 2015, OJP
deobligated the $525,925 in undrawn grant funds that had expire<! for Grant
Number 2oo9-8T-89-0089 (see Attachmenl 2)_

Accordingly, the Office of Justice Programs requests closure of this recommendation.

7.

We recom mend that OJP ensure that NDPS implements a process to submit Federal
Financial Reports (FFRs) that accurately reflect expenditures for each reporting
period.
OJP agrees with the recommendation. However, NDPS also provided OJP with a copy of
its Ju ly 20, 2015 response to the draft audit report. In its response, NDPS provided a copy
of written policies and procedures implemented to ensure that future Federal Financial
Reports accurately reflect expenditures for the reporting (see Attachment 1). These
procedures appear to sufficicutly address the recommendation. Accordingly, the Office of
Justice Programs requests closure ofthis recommendation.

3

21


8.

We recommend tbat OJP remedy tbe $290,116 in unallowable expenditures
associated with unlleeessary planning grants:
a.

Remedy S140.380 for Grant Number 2008-IP-8X-0036.

b.

Remedy S149,736 for Grant Number 2009-IP-BX-0074.
OJP respectfully disagrees with all parts of the recommendation, and does not
believe these grants were unnecessary. OJP's Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)
performed another review of the applications that the Navajo Nation submitted,
under the Corre<:tionai Systems and Correctional Alternatives on Tribal Lands
(CSCATL) Program solicitations, and dctermined that thc Navajo Nation provided
an outlinc to comprehensively plan for regional colTtttional facilities, specifically
in Tuba City, Arizona, and Kayenta, Ari)'J)na. BJA made the awards for this
planning activity, through Grant Nu mbers 2008-IP-BX-0036 and
2009-1P-8X-0074, respectively, in the amount 0[$150,000 each. 8JA found that
there was no mention in these applications that the Navajo Nation had produced a
reservation-wide Public Safety Facilities Master Plan in 2007 (Master Plan), as
stated in the draft audit report. DJA further determine<! that the Master Plan
provided an overall vision for correctional services throughout the Navajo Nation.
BJA stated that the Master Plan made recommendations and provided prototypes
for the types of facilities and services that would best address {he needs for the
various judicial districts across the reservation.
However, BJA dctermined that Master Plan did not eliminate the need for planning
activities for site-specific construction. The plmming, to be completed through
Grant Numbers 2008-JI>-8X-0036 and 2009-IP-BX-0074, was specific to the Tuba
City (later Dilkon, Arizona) and Kayenta facilities. These plans wcre developed to
review the needs and modify the Master Plan prototypes specific to each location
and facility. As funding became available for construction of these facilities,
through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act CARRA), the specific scope
of each award was modified. The revised scope of activities for each grant was
allowable, under the parameters provided through the CSCATL Program
solicitations. Accordingly, the Office of Justice Programs rcspeetfully requests
closure of the questioned costs associated with this recommendation.

4

22


9.

We recommend that OJP remedy the $32,034,623 ill unallowable expenditures
associated with excessive building sb:es:

a.

Remedy $20,375,234 for Grant Number 2009-8T-R9-0089.

b.

Remedy Sll,659,389 for Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0 100.
Dl P agrees in part with the recommendation, and docs not believe that there were
unallowable expenditures associated with excessive building sizes. BJA
performed another review orthe appl ications submitted by the Navajo Nation to
construct the 118.848 square foot multi-purpose justice center in Tuba City,
Ari7..Dna, and the 91,036 square foot detention center in Kayenta, Arizona. BlA
made these awards, in the amounts of $38,587,560 under Grant Nwnber
2009-ST-89-0089 for the Tuba City project; and $31 ,655,277 under Grant Nwnber
2009-ST-B9-0 100 for the Kayenta project. The applications, which were pct..T
reviewed, detailed the Navajo Nation's need for new facilities on the reservation.

As early as June 2010, BlA noticed that several grant-related documents for the
Tuba City Project, under Grant Number 2009-ST-139-0089, used different
terminology in referring to capacity of the mul ti-purpose justice center.
Specifically, the semi-annual progress reports, the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) documentation, and reports submitted by the Alpha Corporation
(Alpha), BlA's training and technical assistance provider for the CSCATL
Program, mentioned facility size in tenus of overall square footage for the facility,
andlor 92,000 square feet and 132 beds for the detention portion of the facil ity.
Three months into the project, the first semi-annual progress report, submitted in
January 2010, included meeting notes that referred to 48 beds. However, it was
apparent to 8JA, through the substantive documentation listed above, that the Tuba
City project was going to be at O f near the 132·bed capacity.
BJA also found that the early semi-annual progrcs~ reports for the Kayenta
project, under Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-01 00, indicated that the total square
footage of the facility would increase to accommodate additional programming
space, but would not increase the bed space. As planning and design C()ntinued
for the facility, BJA found that Alpha had noted that the project's scope had
increased in ~ize and bed space. Because ofthe..~ changes, DlA and Alpha
worked with the Navajo Department of Corrections (NODC) to submit a change
in project scope Grant Adjustment Notice (GAN) for the grant which included
these changes, a.~ well a~ addressed any potentia! issues with the NEPA
clearance. These changes were reviewed and approved by BJA, in GAN Number
14, on August 7, 2012 (see Attaelunent 3).

5

23


In addition, BJA closely tracked the project milestones for its construction
projects, beginning in January 20 II. BlA held hi-weekly meetings on the
ARRA·funded projects and established a monthly tracking mechanism, which
included the facility bed-space numbers for all of the ARM-funded projects,
including the Tuba City and Kayenta facilities, as well as progress towards
completion of each of the projeet milestones, including completion of the NEPA
requirements and submission of project designs to the U.s. Department of Interior,
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BfA) for rev iew and approval.
As the projects moved through the design phase, BJA wa~ aware of and was
tracking the bed-space plans and any modifications. Because the overall si:a: of
the facilities remai ned consistent wi th the applications, BlA determined that a
change ofscopc GAN for the Tuba City and Kayenta projects based on
bed-space alone was not necessary. If a change in the purpose, scope, or overall
usc of the facilities being constructed with the granl funds had been identified, a
GAN would have been required, as it was with the Kaycnta project.
The OIG report used the tenn "excessive" to describe the size of the Tuba City and
Kayenta fac ilities that were constructed. The deplorable conditions in many tribal
correctional facilities that actively ho usc offenders remai ns a concern that ARRA
addressed through the new construction of facilities on tribal lands. BJA foc used
efforts on n::ducing and replacing the use of out-mooed structures that fail to
provide programming space to impact oITender behavior, and that through design
may provide a more safe and efficient use of correctional staff in their management
of inmates.
BJA found that the Navajo Nation slated in its applications, fo r the Tuba City and
Kayenta projects, it had five adult jail facilities throughout the various pans of the
Navajo Nation that were old, deteriorated, and facing closures. The Navajo Nation
further stated in its applications thai a group of inmates had filed a class action suit
in 1992 aneging inhumane conditions, such as overcrowding, lack of personal
hygiene, and inadequate nutrition in Navajo jails. In response, the Navajo Nation
Window Rock District Court issued a consent decree thaI required that all persons
housed in Navajo jai ls should be detained Wldcr humanc conditions. The consent
decree held that, iffunds were not available to take the necessary steps to hou~e
offenders under humane conditions, the jail population must be reduced so that the
remaining inmate~ are hou'iCd accordingly.
To that end, the Navajo Nation stated that it had to stop prosecuting certain crimes
because they were not able to house offenders at the standards req uired under the
consent decree. Based on the infonnation in Navajo Nation's grant applications,
prior to the consent decree, five of six Navajo Nationjails had a capacity of more
than 50 beds per facility, for a total of250 beds, compared to the total 0[59 beds
(all facilities combined) prior to receiving ARRA funding. The Navajo Nation
President was able to end the consent decree requirements in December 20 14, due
in part to the new bed-space capacity provided through the ARRA-funded projects.

6

24


BJA supports tribal justice systems' ability to use correctional facilities as a tool to
provide for public safety, as well as to apply correctional programming to
offenders to reduce recidivism rales by addressing domestic violence, gang
violence, substance abuse and other serious crimes. In consideration of Navajo
Nation's population ofapproximatcly 250,000, which covers an area the size of the
state of West Virginia, the provision of the two new modernized facilities in Tuba
City and Kayenta., with a combined capacity of212 beds through the ARRA
funding, BlA docs not believe these facilities are excessive.
Further, thc OlG stated in its report that the BiA expressed concerns to BlA
regarding the large size nf the Tuba City corrcctional facility and staffing for the
Kayenta correctional facility because the Kayenta district does not have the
population to support the jail size. BlA stated that BfA maintains an inventory of
tribal detention facilities and an assessment of detention needs for tribes in Indian
Country. Given BIA's limited resources to fund operations, maintenance, and
staffing of detention, and knowledge as it relates to their tribal facilities priority
listing, BlA has always recognized the importance of including 131/\ in the
decision.making and development of all BlA-funded construction projects on
tribal lands.
However, when given the history of funding available, the BIA is funded only to
provide operational capacity at approximately 40-50 pereent, regardless of where
in Indian County the facilities are built. The BIA did not provide infonnation on
funding capability s~ific to any particular project, but informed B1A of the
shortfall in operations and maintenance, after the awards were made under ARRA.
ARRA provided $225 million in construction dollars to build capacity for the
incarceration of offenders subject to tribal jurisdiction without the guarantee of
future funding for operations and maintenance of these facilities. If the tribal
gove rnments are not able to operate a facility on their own, then the tribe would
have the opportunity to requt:st that the BIA assume responsibi lity for operating
and maintaining these facilities.
Given the important role o f the RIA in future success of projects constructed
through the CSCATL Program, BlA and the Navajo Nation coordinated with BIA
throughout the design and construction ofthe Tuba City and Kayenta projects.
BIA was also given (he opportunity to review and comment on the applications
subm itted under the CSCATL solicitations, and concurred with BJA on the
funding decisions for both the Tuba City and Kayenta projects. Further, the
Navajo Nation provided BIA with the design documents for the facilities at the
20 percent, 70 pereent, and 99 percent design review levels. These designs were
approved by BIA prior to construction at the Tuba City and Kayenta facilities.

7

25


Addi tionally, BJA held conference calls every 3·5 months with the Navajo Nation,
Al pha, and BIA to discuss the design and construction status as well as
operational and transitiona l planning. BJA stated that all participants were given
the opportunity to raise any concerns regarding the construction and future
opcr'dtion o f the facilities. Further, BJA stated that 811\ did not express any
concerns or objections to BJA regarding the size or operation of the facilitie s
during the conference calls or throughout the project period of these grants.
In hindsight, BjA recognizes that there appears to be some discrepancy with the
recommended size for the facilities in relation to the 2007 Master Plan. However,
no fonnal scope change was required, since the size requirements for the Tuba
City and Kayenta facilities were not specific to bed-space numbers in the
applications, as originally submitted. Additionally, the size and scope of the
construction related to the Kayenta project (Grant Number 2009·ST-8 9-0 I 00)
was fonnally approved by BJA on August 7, 2012, through GAN Number 14.
Based on the foregoing information, the Office of Justice Programs respectfully
requests closure of all parts of this recomme ndation.
We apprecillte the opportunity to review and comment on the draft audit report. If you hllve lIny
questions or require additional information, please contact Jeffery A. Haley, Deputy Director,
Audit and Review Division, on (202) 616-2936.
Attaclunents
cc:

Jeffery A. Haley
Deputy Director, Aud it lind Review Division
Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management
Denise O'Donnell
Director
Bureau of Justice Assb1ance
Tracey Trautman
Deputy Director for Programs
Bureau of Justice Assistance
Eileen Garry
Deputy Director for Planning
Bureau of Justice Assistance
Pamela Cammamta
ChiefofStaff
Bureau of Justice Assistance
Michael Bottner
Budget Director
Bureau of Justice Assistance

8

26


cc:

Amanda wCiccro
Budget Analyst
Bureau of Just ice Assistance
Jonathan Faley
Associate Deputy Director, Programs Office
Bureau of Justice Assistance
Michael Dever
Division Chief, Programs Office
Bureau of Justice Assistance

Darn Schulman
Grant Program Specialist
Bureau of Justice Assistance
Julius Dupree
Policy Adviwr. Policy Office
Bureau of Justi ce Assistan ce
Leigh A. Benda
Chief Financial Officer
Christal McNeil -Wright
Associate Chief Financial Officer
Grants Financial Management Division
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Jerry Conty
Assistant Chief Financial Officer
Grants Financial Management Division
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Aida Brumme
Acting Manager, Evaluation and Oversight Branch
Grants Financial Management Division
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Richard P. Theis
Assistant Director, Audit Liaison Group
Internal Review and Evaluation Office
Justice Management Division

OlP Executive Secretariat
Control Nwnber 1"1"20150617093341

9

27


This page left intentionally blank.

APPENDIX 4
NAVAJO NATION RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT 28
RUSSELL BEGAYE PllESIDENT
JONATHAN NEZ VICE PRESIDENT

THENAVi\JO NATION

July 20,2015

David Sheeren, Regional Audit Manager
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Denver Regional Audit Office
1120 Lincoln, Suite 1500
Denver, Colorado 80203

RE:

Navajo Nation Response to June 16,2015 OIG Drart Audit Report

Dear Mr. Sheeren:
Enclosed is the Navajo Nation Response to the June 16, 2015 Audit of the Office of
Justice Programs Correctional Systems and Correctional Alternatives on Tribal Lands Program
Grants Awarded to the Navajo Division of Public Safety. The Response consists of a Cover
Letter, the Management Representation Letter, a Table of Contents, the Narrative, and Exhibits.
If you have any questions, please call me at (928) 871-6033.
Sincerely,

(! (lI'v\;I

r-

CordellSh~

Contracting Officer
Contracts and Grants Section
Office of Management and Budget
Enclosure
cc:

Robert Willie, Acting Controller, OOC
Delores Greyeyes, Director, DOC
Jesse Delmar, Acting Executive Director, NDPS
Regina Holyan, Principal Attorney, NNDOJ
Linda]. Taylor, USDO], OJP, Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management

Ol1icc of M:magcmcllt ,md Budget. Post OJ1i('c Box 64li • Window Hock,!\L. 86515
(928) 871-6470 Telephone • (928) 871-6.567 Facsimile

28

Attachments to this response were not included in this final report.

28


TAIlLE OF CONTENTS

o

Page
INTRODUCTION . .. .. ..... .... .... .... . ...... ............... .. ... ... .. ..... ................... 1

1. Ensure lhat NDPS implements a

rroccs~

to ve rify tlmt recipients ofooJ

funds ;\!'C not sUlipcndcd or dl:b.lrred ..... ..... .... .. ......... . ............................. 1

2. Remedy $656,921 in unsupportct.l qUCSltoOl.:d costs ror Grant Number
2009·ST·1l9...()()89 ............. ................. ............................. ................. 1
3, Remed y $2,554,924 ;n unallowable questioned costs associatctl with the
lo llowing issu!:s: .......... .... .. .. .. . ..... ........ .. ..... .. ............. . ... . .. ............... 2

a. Remedy $528,082 in );rant reimbursements expended nn court rdocolion
costs c harged to Gram Number 2oo9-ST· B9-0089 ................................... 2
b. Remedy $8 15,248 in grant reimbursements for non·grant cxpenditures
charged to Gront Number 2009-ST -119-0089 ................. ........................ 3
c. Remedy $563,262 in grant re imbursements for expenditures that
occurred prior to environme nt.. 1clearance for Gra nt Number
2009-ST· B9-0089 . .. ....... .............................. ............................... .4
d. Remedy $648,332 in grant reimbursements for expenditures that occurred
prior 10 environmental clearance for Grant Number 2009-ST·B9·0100 .......... .4

o

4. Remedy $16,669 in unallocntcd matching costs for Grant Number
2009-IP-8X·0074 ............ ... . .......................... .. .. ..... .............. ............. 5

5. Ensure NDI'S meets the malch requirement lor G rant Number
2009-ST -89-0100 by Ihe end oflhe grant... ............ ... .. .. ........................... 5
6. Remedy $535,545 in funds 10 better use lWOCialed wilh unexpended grunt
runds: ..... .•.. ..... ............... .............................................................. 5
a. Remedy $9.620 in funds 10 beller use for Grant Number 2008-IP-BX-0036 .... 5
b. Remed y $525.925 in funds 10 beller use for Grant Number 2009-ST-89-0089.5
7. Ensure that NDPS implements a process 10 submit Ff'Rs that accurately retlee!
expenditures fo r each reponing period ................................ ............... ...... 5
8. Remedy $290, \16 in unallowable expenditures Il5sociated with unneeesSilry
plan ning grants: ......... ........ .... ..........•................... .... ........................6

a. Remedy $140.380 for Gr.mt Number 2008-JP-BX·OO36 ...........................6
b. Remedy $ 149,736 for Grant Number 2009-IP-BX-0074 ........................... 7
9. Remedy $32.034,623 in unalloWlible cxpenditures ll550Ciated with cxcessive
building sizes: ................................................. ... . ... .. .. ..... ................ 7

o

o. Remed y 520,375.234 for Grant Numbe r 2009-ST·B9-0089 ....................... 7
h. Remedy 5 11 ,659,389 for Grunt Number 2009-ST· B9-OIOO .. ..................... 7

29


NAVi\.IO NATION RESPONSE TO OIG DRAFT AUDIT REPORT

o

SulJmiltcd nn ,Iuly 211, 2015

Introdudion

The Navajo Nation responds 10 the Dr.1fi Audit Report ("Audit Report") o f the USOOJ Omee of
Justice Progrnms Correctional S~lems arld Correctional Alternatives un Tribal Lands Progr.am
Grants Awan.lctlto the Nuvlljo Division o r Public SnlclY. While the Navajo Nation recognizes
thai the gr.lIIlccs uflhe American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ("ARRA") Gmnts were the

Navajo Division of Public S:lIety ("NDPS"), the Response is structured in terms of cxpl:lining
and discussing the actions of three specilic Navajo Nalion Programs:

•
•

"

o

Department of Corrections ("DOC") is the Dcpllrtment within NDPS that actually
iuJministcrcu and implemented the audilcd ARRA gr.mls;
omec of the Controller (,'OOC"). within the Division of Finance:, is responsible: to
develop policies to implement linancilll accounting and reporting lo r grolnts awunlcd to
the: Navajo Nation; und
Olliee of Manugement and Budget ("OMB") provides services to Navajo Nation
Progmms in the areas of budgct development, contract and grant administration, und
mUIl.1gemcnt and policy development.

The brucketcd numbers before doll:lr amounts noted in this Response are numbers keyed to the
sprc.1dsh ....et tllllt wus provided by the Ollice of the Inspector General ("OIG Spreadsheet") and is
incorporated :IS Exhibit I. Exhibits provide supporting documentulion cltcept lor those
documents presumed to be known or obtaincd by the Otlice of Inspector General learn that
conducted the audit such as the ARRA Grant Award documents and the 2007 Navajo Nation
Master PI:ln.

I. Ensure thaI NDPS implementll a process to verify that recipients or DOJ runds are not
suspended ur debarred
Concurrence
Exhibit 2 is the DOC Policy Memo Ih:lt otlici:llly notilies DOC staff to implement the
procedure: o utlined cnective immediatdy in order to verilY that recipients of USDOJ funds
arc not suspended or debarred.

2. Remedy 5656,921 in unsullporled questioned eosls for Grant Number 2OQ9·ST·B9·0089
Partial Concurrence
DOC identilied the transactions listed on the OIG Spreadsheet by the Transaction Date
column of the OIG Spreadsheet. whic h dalcs mlltched the dates that Navajo Nation checks
WCf"e issued for each 1"eSpt."Ctivc trnnsaction listed in the OIG spreadsheet. DOC uses the term
"payapp,'" for pay applications.

o

a
[I) $189.258
Pay Apo 118
Arviso-Okland
Nonconcurrence
Arviso-Oklllnd submitted the totlll invoice Ilmount for $2.033.369. The amount by Arcadis
01'$1,830,032 was incorrect because it should not hllve: deducted 10% retainage from Arviso·

30


o

Oklanu's amount. DOC subtracted oUl $14,079 rrom the lolal t\rviso-OklunJ invoice
hccausc $ 14,079 was unullowublc (:osts. 'llle m.ljustcJ total invoice :.!Inullnt thus became
$2,019,290. The Receiving Record ret]ucslcd payment 10 Arviso-Okland using the
:52,019,290 amount, and Ihe $189,258 is included in the S2,0 19,290. Exhibit)
h.
[JJ $]92,3 11
ray ApD #22
Arviso-Okhnd
Nonconcurrence
Pay App #22 paid three (3) invoices Ih;1I totaled $8]8,339, Invoices were p:liJ on a 73%
(ARRA) and 27% (other sources) split. Seventy-three percent of $8]8,339;$611,987.
However, bl!Cuusc the Furniture, Fi;durcs & Equipment balance at Ihallime was S392,311,
only $392,311 was charged 10 ARRA. Since, 001V. 2009-ST-B9-0089 has an cnding balance
ofS525.925, the difference ($219,676) between $611,987 and S]92,] II will be charged to
the ARRA account. DOC has dralleLl a Workshet!t that OOC can use as II basis for 11
processing this transfer. E.~hibits 4 (lnd 5.
c.
[41 $]4,0]4
Invoice # I
Dymn Mumhy
Concurrence
The total amount for invoice #1 was $261,177, of which 75% was to be charged to ARRA.
"Iowever, only $]4,0]4 was initially charged to ARRA. The difference ($161 ,849) between
S261,177 and S34,034 will be transferred to the ARRA account. DOC has drafted a
Workshct:1 that OOC can usc as a basis lor processing this transfer. Exhibit 5.

o

tI.
[51 536,387
Pay Apo #3
Dvmn Mumhv
Concurrence
Even though the invoice stated that $74,642 or the total invoice amount ($111,029) was to be
chtuged to ARRA, $111,029 was charged to ARRA. The ditTerence (S]6,]87) between
SIII,029 and S74,642 will be transferred to a non-ARRA account. DOC has drafted a
Worksht:ct that OOC cun use as a busis lor processing this transler. Exhibit 5.

e.
125] S 4,929
ray Apo #61
Dvron Murphv
Nonconcurrence
The lolder contuining this transaction did not have the supporting documents lor the invoice
total of $4,929. OOC forwurded the supporting documents for this transaction to DOC, am.!
they ure attached. Exhibit 6.
3, Remedy $2,554,924 in unllllowable qucstioned costs associated with the following issucs:
Parti:1I Concurrence
a. Remedy $528,082 in grunt reimbursements cxpended on court relocation costs charged to
Nonconcurrence
Gmnt Number 2009-S!-89-0089
[2] 5528,082
Pay App #17
Arviso-Okland
DOC identitied Pay App #17 as the transaction that DIG seemed to believe paid court
relocation costs. In the rront or Pay App #17 folder were stapled pagt:s of which the first
page included a chart that listed "court relocation costs" in the amount of 5528,082.
Exhibit 7a. DOC surmises that OIG may have used this sheet as a basis tor believing that
$528,082 was used for court relocation costs. These stapled pages should not have been
in the Pay App # 17 folder and have been removed from this folder.

o

The General Conditions and Site Conditions listing from this Pay App show that none or
items listed was lor "court relocation costs," Exhibit 7b. Pay App 1117 did not pay for
court relocation costs.

,

31


o

DOC Incah:lI the

l h~

(3) Pay Apps llml did pay coun rcloc:ltion cos's. E.'(hibits: Sa-Pay

App #2 Arvi.m-Okland. Kb-Pay I\pp #4 Arviso-Okland. Be-Pay App 116 Arviso-Okland.
An d Ihese CllstS lYere nOI charged 10 the AR RA account.
b. Itcml!uy $8 15,248 in )!r;!nt rcimbuG!cmcnt~ ror non-lI.rJnt c.'wcnsJjlures Ch:lO!cd 10 Gronl

Numhcr 200Q·ST-119-0089
PRoipi Concurrence
I)
[61 S27,276 Pay App 114
Arviso-Okillml
Concurrence
The 5/) 0/ 11 i\rcaJis leiter ;Iod the invoic!: noled that invoice charges we re for bolh Tuba
City \lod Crownpoint. The lolal invoice ;!mount wus $33.149. The $27,276 incorrectly
charl:cd 10 the ARRA account will be Ctl!TCctly trnnslcrn:d to a non-ARRA account.
DOC has drJ.llcd a Worksheet that OOC com usc as a basis for processing this trnnsfer.

ExhibitS.
2)
126] S12 1,805 Pay App 1# 13
Arviso-Okland
Concurrence
All the costs includcd in this Pay App were c~pcnt.led lo r Crownpoint, but the total
inv()kc amount of S I21,805 was incorrectl y c harged to the ARRA account. The total
cll:lrge of $121,805 will be trans/emd to a non-ARRA :lccount. DOC has drafted a
Workshect thai ooc: can use as:l basis for processing this transfer. Exhibit 5.

o

3)
5666, 166
Other Non-Grant E;'(pcndilures
P:lrti31 Concurrence
The Nation noted these transactions as "partial concurrence" because OVl"r a ye:lf ago
DOC ~ubmitlcd worksheets for OOC to trans le r these transOlClions to appropriate
accounts. Ini tially, these costs were all cnargl.'() to COI412.68I3, the Sales Tax Fund,
bec:wse this was the only rund avai lable duri ng the pre-construction phase. In January
2014, DOC submitted Worksheet I, E;'(hibil9, to OOC so OOC could b35e its transfers
on the WorksOcct. But OOC instructed DOC to revise Worksheet I. DOC did so and
submitted the revision:ls Worksheet 2 in MOIrch 2014, Exhibit 10. However, when OOC
OIctuOllly processed the transfe~ in July 2014, it inadVertently based Ute transfers on
Worksheet I instead of Worksheet 2. E:<hibit I I. DOC has draned a Worksheet that
OOC c:ln use as a basis for processing t!':mslers of the following transactions from
E;'(hibit I: llO-22, 24, 27, 7b, Sb, OInd 9bJ. E;'(hibit 12. [23] docs not need to be
transferred as explaim::d below.
a)
(23 1 S IO,976.91. The total invoice amount was $50,793.13. But the
Rcceiving Record dated 7/02112 c h3 rged only S3 1,821.20 to the ARRA
account. The $ 10,976.91 was not charged to the ARRA account. So no
action needs to be taken on the $10,976.9 1. Exhibit 13.
b)
(27] $43,326.13. Tht' total invoice amou nt was $ 174,151.89. The
Receiving RC{;ord daled 11122110 showed thai S 123,788.94 was initially
charged to the ARRA :lccount and $50,362.95 wns charged 10 the Sales Tax
Fund. DOC has dm licd ;a Workshed. thai OOC can use ItS a basis for processing a
tronsfer of$43,326.13 to a non-ARRA account. Exhibit 14.

o

c)
[8b] $27,01 1.96. The total invoice 3nlOunt was $77,528.04, but
Receiving Rttord dated 7/0 1110 charged only $71,938.56 to the Sales Tax
J

32


rund. This $71,938.56 \VIIS incorrectly lr.mslcITcu to the ARRA acctlunt.
l)cc:lusc of the short pay on this Ir:msaclion, only $25,178.50 (nol S27,OI I.1)6)
needs to be tr:msrcm."tI to II non-ARRA account. DOC h:!s ,jr.an~d :I Worksh.......
Ih3\ OOC can use as a basi, for pruc:cssing this lrunsf..T. Exh ibit IS.

o
,.
i

t

These three transactions lire [71. [8). IIml [91listctl in Exhibit I. DOC began I,lxpcmling

funlls relative to an environmental clco.rnnce with the umlcr.n3nJing thai funus could be
c'"<pcnoL-o so long as it paid for activities that did nut '"break ground." 1111S understllntlin~
wa.s conJirnll.:d by the scminurs on gront mamlgcmcnt thut were aUended by DOC slalT'.

o

!'"rsUllnt to the [raining n.~civcd in these seminars, DOC umJcrslood that Special
Condition 9 in the ARRA Gnmts mCllnt th at funds could be ohliglltcu anu e'''P'!nue<.l prior
10 an environmental clearancc so long as the funus were e:c.pendcd for ac tiviti cs that diu
not "break ground." Thus, the thl« tra nsactions wcre for pre-construclion act ivities such
as ucvcloping schemntic ucsigns, I:unducting uesign reviews, investigaling gcotcchnicnl
lactors, cooruin:lting utility factors. and paying costs related to (travel. lodging)
conducting charrettes. "Charrettes" is n construc tion industry tenn that means owner,
projC1.:t mnnager. and general contractor meetings th:lt discuss :lnd dccide overall
mnn:lgemenl lind monitoring issues. E:c.pending funds for these types of pre. construction
tlctivities was consistent with DOC's understanding confirmed by the linanci31 grant
m3n3gemcnl scmin3111.
DOC does plan to submit a request to the USDO} Bureau or Justice Assistance ("OlA")
for 3 lin:l! detennin3!ion and retro3ctive :Ipproval of these three Iro nSllctions by
submitting e:c.pI3nation,juslilication and supporting document3!ion lor its request.
u, Rcmctly $648,332 in grant reimbursements for c:c.oendituln that occurreU prior to
environment31 cle;aronce for Gront Number 2Q09.ST.B9--O IOO
P3rti:l1 Concurreoce
TI)Csc twenty transactions [28 through 471 ate listed in Exhibit I. DOC begun expendi ng
funds relative to an environmental clearance with the understanding th31 funds could be
c:-:pended so long as it paid for aetivitiesthnt uid not "break ground," This undcrstanding
was conlinned by the seminars on gran t mamlgement that were attended by DOC stall:
Pursuant to the tr.lining receivf!d in these seminars. DOC understood th3t Special
Cond ition 9 in thf! ARRA Grunts mennt thatlunds could be obligated and expended prior
to 3n environmental clcaronce so long as the tunds were expended lor activ ities that did
not "break ground." Thus. the twen ty transactions were [or pre·construction 3ctivities
such as rights of wily issues, chaTfetles, and conducting concept designs, design revicws,
schematic designs, and utility coordination. Expending funds for these lypes of pre.
construction oclivitlcs wos consistent wi th DOC's understnnding confinned by the
linancial grant m3nagement seminars.

o

'A DOC 5ll1fTmcmbc:r nttelldcd tinlllloCiat m~lIag~menl !lCmilWl lh~1 wo:n: ho:td ill WlI5hinglon DC lind Albuqll~rquc
NM. 1l1~ DOC Director Dlld one 5tafTmembc:r mtcoocd the Rtiiollllt Financiat Management Trainln; Scmillar hdd
in I'hUO:lli.~ on Fcbn.wy 2t-24, 2012. (collld 1101 to(:lItc trainin; announcements wilhin lhe lime rramc 10 "ubmit our
Response)

4

33


o

In ..Jditinn, DOC initiated an cnvironmcnlat clcarJllCc-related process in 2009. As is

usually the case. numerous issues came up which had to addressed and mitigated. Over
1111: cour:IC of obtaini ng environmental clearnnce. DOC workcd wilh four USOOJ policy
advisors. Alpha Corporation. a construction linn hired by BJA (0 provide I~hnical
assisl;lOCc to Indian construction projects. was able 10 lina ll y clarify and coordinate all
the work that had been done so that an environmenta l clearance approval was lillllll y
issul!d in June 20 II .
DOC docs plan 10 submit a request to I3JA for a final determ ination ;lnd retroacti ve

approv;!! of these twenty transuctions by submitting explanation, justification and
supporting documentation lor its request.
... Remedy 516,669 in unallocated m a lchlng costs (or Grant Number 2009·IP·8X-0074
Concurrence
DOC had init iated in November 20 12 a request for waiver o r the mntch requirement lor this
Grnnt Ilowever, our request for waiver was ne ver processed for ac tion. We will now
submit a request to BJA for a retnl<lcli ve approvnl for a waiver of the IlUItch requirement.
E.'~hibi t 16.
5. Ensure NDPS meets Ihe match requirement for Grlln! Number 1009·ST·B9·0100 by the
end oflhe grunt
Nonconcurrence

o

The Nation concludes this as a nonconcurrence bec:lUse it has met th e malch requ irement
already. 1be millch requ irement lor this Gran t was mct by an appropriation in the amount of
$3,5 17,253 from Ihe Judicial Public Safety Special Revenuo:s Fund. The approPfia tion was
used as u eash match and is verified on the Navajo Nation FMIS printout Exhibit 17.
6. Remedy SS3S,545 in funds to better use aS50cilited with unexpended gru nt funds:
Concurrence
a. Remedy $9,620 in funds to beller use for Ornnt Number 2008-IP-8X·OO36
The implementation of this Plan ning Gran t did result in an unused balance of 59,620.
Goals and objectives were completed.
b. Remedy 5525,925 in funds 10 better use for Grnnt Number 2009-ST -09-0089
This Construction Grant d id resu lt in nn unused balance.
DOC will submit
documentation 10 OOC 10 process tronslers both o lT and on to the ARRA accounl as
stated elsewhere in Ihis Response.
7. En.sure Ihul NDPS implements u proeeSJ to submit FFR.s that accurately r en ed
espc!IIditures for I!lIch reporling period
Partial Concurrence

OOC prepam and submits Federal Fin:lOcial Reports (" FFRs") on USDQJ grants awarded 10

o

Navajo Notion Progrnms. OOC's Contract Accounting Section processes FFRs an d initiates
drawdowns of USDOJ funds. The process to submit FFRs by OOC is shown in Ex hibit 18.

,

34


o

lUld whic h is Iro m the Accountin g Pulici![s ami Procedures Mjlnual. CtlotrJct/Grnnl Standard
ReQ!1r1im; I'rO!:~s5 Procedures.
Conlmct and Grants Section ("CGS") of OMB moni tors Navajo Nation Progmms that
adminisler USOOJ gronts to ensure complianc!! with the grJnt lIgret!mcnls. In urtlcr to more
dTl"Ctivcly monitor that these Programs are comply ing with Gmnt Special Conditions, Ihe
Navajo Nation implemented a higher level of compliance rev i![w.

·1111.l

CGS uses Letters of Assurance ("LOAs") as a means by which Programs verify their
complillncc wit h Gmnt Special Conditions. In additio n, COS conduc ts othe r reviews that
include tin:lIIcial rev iew, narrative reports, budget revisions. mtltching IUnds, tl nd single
lIud il. Upon the com plction of the LOAs with :luachments, Exhibit 19, CGS notities OOC
thut it may p roc~d with drawdowns ofUSDOJ funds.

The stcps for the comp liance review are 35 follows:
t i~ly submission of its annual and quartl-rly
narrative reports to USDOJ funding t1gency. The Program forwards a copy of its
narrative reports to CGS for review.
CX>C is responsible for the timely submission of quarterly FFRs to USDOJ lu nding
age ncies. OOC forwards copies of the FFRs to CGS for review.
COS conducts the Compliance Check by review ing the !>rogrnm's most recent FFRs
an d namttive report, budget revisions. matching funds, s ing le audi t. Grnnt Adjustment
Notices ("GAN"), and Close Oul o f Contracts.
Upon completion o f Ihe Compliance Check, COS issues an LOA wit h attachments
that infonns OOC that the Program is in compliance and that OOC may proceed wi th
drawdown ofUSDOJ funds.
Once an LOA is received by DOC, OOC wi/l drawdown the funds for that quarter.

I. A Program is responsible for the

2.
3.

o

4.
S.

8. Remedy 5290,11 6 in unallowable ex penditures IIssoc:iated with unneceS5ary phmning
grllnlS
Nonconcu .....ence
a. Remedy $140,380 for Grant Number 2008-IP-BX-0036
This Planning Gmnt was initially funded lo r the Tuba City facility. but approval was
received Ihrough a GAN to use the Gra nt lo r n lacility proposed for Dilkon. The
justifi cati on stated in OAN da ted 11122/11 ellplained that Navajo Nati on Tax Fund had
paid for most o f the T uba C ity facility planning; and therefore, it requested thai the
Planning Grant be repurposed to planning fOf a Dilkon facility. Exhibit 20. DOC made
no reference to the 2007 Master Plan ("Master Plan") in its justification.
nle Planning Orant funded a nl,,,,-ds assessment that ex tensive ly surveyed and analyzed
the Di lkon community.l The needs assessment focused on factors sP'Xifically rooted in

o

! As Il<'k'd in Ihe Inlroduclion, doc:umcnls lhal ~re known 10 0 10 or were provided 10 0 10 by Ihe Nllvmjo Nalion
...turing Ihe 0 10 aUlJil wili noI be included as exhibits. buL p:lge numbc:rs. where .. ppropri~lc, lire ciled. For uamptc.
_hi$ ~,-",inn diSl:USSI.'S lhe Ditkon Needs Asscssmcn, Rcpnn, Ille Kayenla Ptanning Su..... y Report, aoo lhe 2007

MaslC( I'lan.

6

35


o

the Ditkon community- lnclOfS such :IS population trend, ...'cooomi..: proj~15 Ol1b'Oiog in
the community, education level prolilc!. calls for service \0 Ditkon Police District.
:lrrests, criminal ilnd civil case prolilcs in the Ditkon District Court, and jail detention
stalistics. Thus, th..: activities conducted under Ihis Planning Gnmt IOcuscd specifically
on researchi ng, collecti ng, ~mc.l ,lnulyzing iolorm:llioo thai would inlorm decisions to be
made ilb"ul JI.'Signing ami constnK:ling UcOITCctillns lilcilily in Ditkon.
"rhe purpose of the Master Plan was cnlirely dilTerent [rom Ihe purpose of Ihe Plllnning

GrJnls. 'nlC Master Plan was intended us a "vision" lhul addressed proposed justice
system services lor the entire Navajo Nation, pg. 1.2. The Master Plan staled Ihal it
IlreScnlcJ prototypes lor cutegorics or focilities (Iargc, medium, and small) and that thesc
prototypes shnuld be specilically adapted for each sp<.:cilic project, pg. 1.8. The
prototypes would need to :lCComm0lJ3te variations and would need to be moditied
because the prototypes were not intended lor any specific localion, pgs.I.4, 1.9 :lI'Id 2.2.
The planning presented by the Master Plan focused on a Nav:ljo N:llion·wide SC:lle
wht!TeIlS the Dilkon PI:lnning Gr-lIIt lOc:used on the community of Dilkon. Therelore. the
Planning Grant for Ditkon was nccl'Ss3ry.

o

b. Remedy $ 149.736 for Grnnt Number 2008·IP·I3 X·0074
This PI:lnning GrolOt funded a needs assessment that extensively surveyed lind analyzed
the Kayenta communilY. The needs assessment focused on lactors specifically rOOled in
the Kayenl3 community- Inclors such as POPUl31ion trend, educ3tion level profile.
cmployment prolile. calls for service to Kayenta Police District, aJTeSls. bookings.
ch:lr:Jetcristics of Kayent3 jail population. criminal and civil case trends in the Kayenta
District Court. and jail detention statistics. Thus. the activities conducted under this
Planning Grant focused specifically 1'11'1 rese:lrching, collecting, and an:llyzing infonn:ltion
that would inform decisions to be made about designing and conslrutting a corrections
Incility in Kaycnta.
The purpose of the Master Plan was entirely different from the purpose of the Planning
Grants. 10e Master Plan was intended as a "vision" that oddresst:d proposed justice
system services ror the Navojo Nolion, pg. 1.2. TIle Master Plan stated that it presentcd
prototypes rorcategories of[ocililie5 (1:II'ge, medium, and small) and thai these prototypes
should be sped fically adapted for cach specilic projt:cl. pg. 1.8. The prototypes would
need to octomrmxJate variotions ond would need to bt: moditied because the prototypes
were not intended lor any specific locatinn. pgs.I.4, 1.9 and 2.2. The planning presented
by the Master Plan IOcused on a Novajo Nation-wide scale whereas the Kayenta Planning
Grant focused on the community or Kayt:n!a. Therefore, the Planning Grant for Kayenta
was necessary.
9. Remcdy $32,034,623 in ullallowuble expenditures assochued with excessive building
sizes
Nonconcurrence
a. Remedy $20.37S.234 [or Grnot Number 2009· ST·B9·Q089
b. Remedy $ 11.659.389 [or Grant Number 2Q09·ST·B9·0 IQO

o
1

36


o

The N:llion's Response 10 Recommend:uion 9 addresses both gr.mts.J

In the speci lic

circumstances of this audit, the k"'l1l1, "excessive building Si7.e" implies that the Nalion
constructed r3eil itics th;!! exceedetl the square footage ("SF") set out in the grant applications.
The gran t app lic:lIion for the Tuba City Ibcilily slated I [ 1,848 SF. and the completed facility did
not c)[ce\!d this SF. The S F oflhe Tuba C ity faci lity ac tua ll y tumed out 10 be 87,709 SF. E.'thibil
21. The SF lo r the Kayenta facility was slated as 91,036, lind the completed facility did not
C)[ct."t!'u this SF. The SF of Kayenta aClUlllly tumed out to be 53,009 SF. Exhibit 22. Thus, the
Nation did not I:onslruct facilities of "excessive size," Too, the number
beds per faci lity was
nol proposed nor staled in the grant applications for Tuba City and Kayenta. The ARRA Grant
Awards lo r each facility set out no requirement as to specific SF or number.; orbed per Ibcility.
' nil! discussion below clearly shows that the Nation did not constru ct faciliti es of "excessive
s ize,"

or

Tuba City Facility
GrJnt aoo lieation. The Nation's Application N:uTative for the Tubn City Construction Grnot
states tht: purpose of the applicalion in only two places. On page 7. tbe Nation Slated, '!he goal
of this proposal is to build a Multi-Purpose Justice Center in Tuba C ity, Arizona to rep lace the
old jail that was demolished." On page 12 is the statement: ''The Navnjo Nation requests
538,587,570 to construct an 11 1,848 square foot Multi·Purpose Just ice Center to replnce the
militnry bnrmcks currently used as jai ls." In addition, the Application Narrntive does not stale
that a certain number of beds is intended or planned for the proposed Tuba City faci lity.

o

The Nation's Application Narrati ve mentions the Master PhlO in on ly two places. The first
mention, on page 7. noles only that a Master Plan was completed, and the second mention, on
page 9, states lhal the Master Pla n "includes land withdrawals, site assessments and evaluolions."
Thus, the Application Narrati ve merely notes a Master Plan has been completed. It does not go
on to stale that the Master Pion required a certain number of beds ond square footage for the
proposed Tubn City facili ty. Moreover, the Master Pilln, pg. 1.8, noted thot its "size of detention
components" was based on the assumption thnt a N:lVajo Correctionol Rehabilitation Cenh:r
1V0uid be established, Therefore, the detention sizes presented in the Master Pion must be
modi fied in light o f the filet that, as of this date, no plans are being contemploted to estoblish a
Rehabilitation Center.
Grnot Award, The Tuba City Applicotio n Budget Narra tive ond Budget Detail Worksheet note

the faci lity's SF as 111 ,848 SF. The Tuba City ARRA Oranl Aword includes no mention, much
less 0 requirement that the Tu ba C ity ARRA Gru nt is to be used to construct on ly a certain
s4uare-IOotage faci lity wi th a certain number of beds. In addition, the Gra nt Manager's
Memorandum, PT.I: Project Summary notes that the Maste r Plan presents a "vision" for
add ressing di verse services thaI could reduce rntes of re-arrests ond incocccration, but does not
require the Nation 10 strictly apply the SF and number or beds from the Master Pion to the design
tlnd construction of the Tuba City fac ility

o

) AlO'1i n. rcfCn:n«5 10 glint applications, grotIl :IlVlIrds. pnd MOSIer !'Ian tite: onty ~e: numbers lIS OIG has Ihcsc
doo.:umo:nlS.

8

37


o

Ka yenta Facilit y
Gran t Applicatiun.

'nH: Nation's Application Narrative lor thl; Kil ycn l:J Construction Gr,lOt

S\OItcs the! purpose of the application in only OOt~ pl(lce. On page 7. lhe NaiiOfl sl:Jlcd. "The goal
IIf Ihis proposal is 10 build a lklcnlion Ccnlcr to replace the old jaiL" The Application Namltivc
does nol Slale a spccil1c SF nor th at a certain num ber of boos was intt!mJed or planned lo r the

proposed Kayenta 1:1cilily.
The Nation's Application Narrative lo r Kayenta men tions the Master Phm in only Iwo places.
TIll! lirs! nll::nlioo, on pa~e 7. 0011"."5 onl y that a M3stcr Pli:m was comph..'I.etI. and the second
mention. un p:lYC 10, sl:lleS that Kayenta Township had olre:uJy completed its site plan that

complemented the Master Plan which " includes I:md withdrawals. site assessments and
evaluations." Thus, the Application Nlirrutive mcrely notcs a Master PI.:an has been completed.
It docs not go on to state that the Mastcr Plan required a certain number of beds and square
tootllge for the proposed Kayenta facility. Moreovcr, the Master Plan, pg. 1.8, noted that its
"size of dctention components" was based on the assumption thOlt 3. Navajo Correctional
Rehabilitation Center would be esubl ishcd. Therelore, the detention s izes presented in the
Master Plan must be modi lied in light of the fact that, as of this dule, no plans are being
contemplated to esublish a Rehabilitation Center.

o

Grant Award. Only the Kayenta Application Budget Detail Worksheet notes the proposed SF for
the facility as 9 1,036 SF. The Ka),cn ta ARRA Gm nt Awa rd incl udes no mention much less a
requiremcnl that the Kayenta ARRA Gmnt was to be used to construct only a certain squllre­
footage fOldiity with a certain number of beds. In addition, the Gmnt Manager's Memorandum,
PT./: Proj ect Summ3ry notes onl), thut the Master Plun "entilils 3 strategy" regilrding vurious
services but does not require the Nution to strictly apply the SF and num ber of beds from the
Master Plan to the design and construction of the Kayenta 13dlity.
The M3sh:r PlOln was intended ilS a "vision" that addressed proposed justicc system services for
the entire Navajo Nation, pg. 1.2. The descriptions of the general designs for e3ch Iype of
13dlity (huge, medium, small) are mClI nt to lunction as prototypes, pg. 1.4. These prototypes lire
then to be "adjusted during design to accommod:lle variations in staffing nnd opemtions for each
District locntion," pg. 1.4. The prototypes would need to accom moo:lte variations and would
need to be modified tX.'CllU5e tht! p~otypes were not intended for any specific location, pss. IA.
1.9 nnd 2.2. In other words. the Master Plan was not intended to provide specific sile
specifications for every lurge, medium, and small f(lcility to be built eventually on the Navajo
Nation. 1bercforc, the sqUllre Jootage and numbers of beds for the Tuba City and Kaycnta
f3dlitit!s were consistent with the process of adaptation nnd modification envisioned by the
Mustcr Plan.
The actual process of decision-making regarding numbers of beds occurred in the c h D.rrcttes.~
Decisions made in chalTCtles were bused on fnctors such (IS changes in site conditions, revised or
new assess ments, ch;lIIges in costs. and contingenc)' issues that arose. Also, the chnnge in
number o f beds re nected the Master Plan intention tlwt the prototypes would n«essarily have to
be adapted to speci lic fncil itics. As it was, if thc fncilities h(ld remained wit h the initial bed
numbers, D. lnrge bnlnnce would have resultcd in the ARRA Grnnts lor Tub3 City and Kayenta

o .

Cham:tles arc IIdincti un page" of1 his Response.

9

38


o

hccuuso.: th..: luc ility sizes would have becn rn:ccssarily smaller. This result would haw, cl!rtainly.
res ulted in lindings agai nst the Nation.

In addition,lhe Nation relit.'d on the positiv\! lccdlxlck and approvals communicated by the Alpha
Curpor.llion and IlJA. Alpha Corpornlion providoo ta:hnir.:al assistance lind made site visits to
the Tuba City :.md KaYl'f\llI projects on the rollowing dales: January 25-26. 20 12; May 15 & 17,
201 2; July 31 & August 2, 2012; November 13.2012; and February 14-1 5,2013. Exhibit 23.

These site visits included, for eXllmplc, lours or construction siles, verilication or Buy America
provision. partidp:llion in construction projcCI meetings, and review of pay apI'S. We understand
the periudic reports submi ued 10 BJA by Alpha Corpor:ttion were approved by BJA. 8lA also
visitl:u th~ Nation from January 2]·26. 201 2 to review till USDOl grants including the ARRA
grams. DOC submittcd progress reports 10 BJA which were approved by BJA. Ex hibit 24. The
Iccdbaek given to the Nation alter these visits was unequivocally positivc. In fact, USDOJ was
so impressed with the implementa tion of the Tuba City ARRA Grant that it selectcd thc Tuba
City project as a model project}. Thus, the Nation reaso nably relied on the feedback it
continually l'CI.'Civl"tl through the four years of design :md construction for the Tuba City and
Kayenta faciliti es.
In CilOClusion. the Nation did not conslruct faci lities of excessive building size. The square
footage and num bers of beds fOf'the two facilities re nccted the intention of the Master Plan Ihat
thl! pmtOlypcs presented thc re should be adapted specifically lor each location.

o

The Notion responds here to DIO 's discussion concerning jail occupancy :md costs of operations
and corrections slarr. The approach that would renecl a truer need for holding suspects in jails
across the Navajo Nation is to consider the entire process that ultimately culmin:ues in suspects
being bookcd in j::til.
We considL-r lirst the calls for 5Crvice that come in da ily to the police dispatchers across the
Navajo Nation. Calls (01' service are calls from persons who have emergency issues, need police
assistance or want to report a crime. 'nle NQvajo Police Depanment Total Numbe r ofCglI fQr
Servjces txt District reported statistics from 2000 to 20 14 for all police districts on the Navajo
Nation. Exhibit. 25. This Report st:lIed that the Kayenta Police District COllis for service between
2000 and 20 14 had a range fro m 20,87 1 to ] 7,637, and the Tuba City Po lice District calls for
service in 2000 was 25, 1] 6 and was 69.0 16 in 2OOS.
When potiel! olTie~rs get to the scene, among othcr decisions they need to make is whether to
arrest and book the person(s) cng3ging in criminal corKIuct. This requires Om Cf.'f'$ to evaluate the
seriousness of lhe otTense and whether iftlctaining and n:leasing the pcrson(s) would not further
...'Scal::tte the immediate eircumst3nces lor the other persons involved such liS family me mbers.
Po lice olliccrs gcnernlly know the j3il occupancy for.::r. given day because they have been briefed
at the beginning of thcir shin as to the numbers in detention in the tocaljail. Ifofficers know the
j::til occupancy is filled to or neor C3p:1eity, they will detain and rele35e the suspects and issue
them notices for amignment. However. if a suspect has allegedly committed:1 felony, the police
olTicer will work with the local prosecutor and criminal investigators to either book the person in

o

J

Jason RllI:d ur Atpha Corpornlion reponed 10 DOC in the January 2012 site visit th~t USDOJ had sckl:tcd the Tuba
pro~tllS Dmodel project Dnd included this in 1111 annual USDOJ I'Cp(In.

City

10

39


o

thl! local jail or relay them for booking into :111 olf-rcscrv:lIion jail pending Icucrtll prosecution.
"nlis means-if more jUil splice had been uvailablc-ofliccrs would likely book more suspects
into jail ruther than detaining :lnd rele3sing them.

The num~rs of persons occupying jilll spa~ on any given day in Navajo jails also impact the
(Il>cisions prosecutors m:l.kc concerning whether lh~y wi ll oppose bai l and r~uest that suspects

proc..."1:dings. The Judicial Branch orlhe Navajo Nation deals
with a r.lnge of dilTerent cases throughout the yC3r; i.e., lroffie vio lations. f.lInily civil.

be detained pcrnJing furtner court

Jependency, child in need of supervision. criminal and domestic violence casl".'S. The two case
types which cany jail lime are the criminal and domestic violence C3SCS. We extracted the
criminal anu domestic violence cases h:mdled by the Kayenta and Tuba City District Courts from
2008 (0 2014. The Kayenta Court had the lowest c:lscdoad in 2013 with only 1,294 C:lses and the
peak year in 2009 with 1,753 C:lSCS. The Tuba City District courts lowest caseloo.d WIlS reported
in 2013 with 965 cllses tmd their peak year in 2008 with 4,034 cases. Exhibit 26. A lilctor
alTecting the decrease in Tuba City's c3seload is Ih:1.I the number of prosecutors employed by thc
Navajo Nation also decreased beginning in 2011.

o

Judges alTect the jail oct:upancy mle by if and whether they impose inc.:r.rceral;on as a sentence or
they order other k inds of sentences such as prob31ion or community service. Prosecutors and
N3vajo district court judges also =ive daily serving rosters from the local jai l. Serving rosters
infonn proseculOrs :lnd judges every weekday morning thc number of inmates currently in the
local jllil. This mellns that knowing the eurren! jail occup3ncy rate, prosecutors nuy move for
and judges m3Y elect to order prob:ltion or community service for less serious crimirml
convictions. Agoin, had jail cilpilcity been gre3ter, judges would likely order incarceration for
more convicted persons.
DOC prepmed II chart that shows the average number of inmates actually in jail every day for the
period January.June 2015. E.... hibit 27. To calculate the averages, DOC used the Inmllte
Receiving Roster for Kayenta and the [nmate Serving Roster for Tuba City. Each chart shows
the average per month. Kayenta's average number of inmotes in jail day-to.day is 16. Tub3
City's 3ver:lge number of inmates in j3il day· to-day is 66. This chilrt provides a truer picture of
the numbers o f persons actu311y in j3il in Kaycnta 300 Tuba C ity. The BIA's DOMER shows
only the number injail on the last dilY ofltH: month and new bookings per month. New bookings
st3tistics indicate the numbt."!" booked into jail e3ch day, but it does not rellcct the number
uctually in jail on a sivcn d3Y.

TIte 3hove discussion clcarly indic3tes that thc numbers of persons actually held in Nllvajo jails
is less Ihlln the number that would be detained had jail capacity been greater. In Ol her words,
there is alre3dy a need for larger jail capacities. The construction of a 132-bed lileility in Tuoo
City and an 80·bed facility in Kayenl3 will provide for not only current jail space need but for
jail space IlI:Cd lor severnl year.> into the future. II is beller for the Navajo Nation to h3ve 13rget
jail c3pacity in these new facililies rather than having 10 fund and construct larger facilities in
li ve yC3rs' time.

o

At the outset or these construction projects, DOC under.>tood there would be 3n increllsed need
for additional personnel 3nd operntion 3nd mainten3nce ("O&M") costs for the new facilities.

"

40


o

DOC understands thai Ihe I1IA/OJ5 will not be able to provide full funding lor all FTEs and
Q&M needed to fully opemtes the new thcilitics. However, BJAJOJS informed DOC they would
provide $5.00 per SF ror O&M. and as furnls become available, they would provide limited
funus l'hr FTEs. DOC hns initiated .. ltemalive funding approaches for more FTEs. One
approach is working lVith the Navajo Department of Work Force Development Program. whil:h
has ht,;cn providint; up 10 $400,000 a year lor Work Force participants 10 Ir.lin as corrections
o/liccrs. A S\.'Cond <lpproach is to reach an agrccrncnl with IlINOJS lor DOC to lease jail bt:d
.~paL'CS tn lhl: HIA~Jpcrntcd tribal detention operations. One long tenn approach is \0 introduce
kgislalion that would dmrge jail occupancy Icl!S. The other long !cnn approach is that OflCC
justice center facilities havc been completcd across the Navajo Nation, the Special Revenue Tax
Fund fundin!; these facilities coufd be convened ror Q&M for the new facilities.

o

o
"

41


APPENDIX 5
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF ACTIONS

NECESSARY TO RESOLVE THE REPORT

The Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
provided a draft of this audit report to the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) and the
Navajo Division of Public Safety (NDPS) for review and official comment. OJP’s
response included statements from its Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). The
Navajo Nation provided the response for the NDPS because three different Navajo
Nation programs were involved in management of the audited grants: the
Department of Corrections (DOC) within NDPS; the Office of the Controller (OOC)
within the Navajo Nation Division of Finance; and the Navajo Nation Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). The OJP response is incorporated in Appendix 3
and the Navajo Nation response is incorporated in Appendix 4. The following
provides the OIG analysis of the responses and summary of actions necessary to
resolve the report.
Recommendation:
1.	 Ensure that NDPS implements a process to verify that recipients of
DOJ funds are not suspended or debarred.
Closed. OJP agreed with the recommendation, and stated that NDPS had
provided written procedures to ensure that recipients of DOJ funds are not
suspended or debarred.
The Navajo Nation stated it concurred with the recommendation, and
provided a new DOC Policy Memo with procedures to verify that recipients of
DOJ funds are not suspended or debarred. We reviewed the memo and
determined it adequately addressed our recommendation.
2.	 Remedy $656,921 in unsupported questioned costs for Grant Number
2009-ST-B9-0089.
Resolved. OJP agreed with the recommendation, and stated that it would
coordinate with NDPS to remedy the $656,921 in unsupported questioned
costs.
The Navajo Nation stated it partially concurred with the recommendation.
The Navajo concurred with two questioned expenditures; one for $34,034
and one for $36,387 for a total of $70,421. The Navajo Nation stated that it
will make accounting transfers to address questioned amounts. There were
three questioned expenditures that the Navajo Nation did not concur with;
one for $4,930, one for $189,259, and one for $392,311, for a total of
$586,500. For each of the expenditures with which the Navajo Nation did

42


not concur, the Navajo Nation provided explanations and documentation. We
reviewed the documentation and determined that it was adequate to remedy
two of the questioned expenditures, in the amount of $4,930 and $189,259.
The final expenditure was for $392,311 in unsupported furniture expenses.
The total cost of furniture in the pay application was $769,234 including
retainage and taxes. We reviewed the supporting documentation and found
a worksheet submitted with the pay application that stated $392,311
(51 percent of the pay application total) in furniture costs should be charged
to the Recovery Act grant. Also, included with the pay application
documentation were exact costs, not including retainage and taxes, for the
furnishings installed in the law enforcement building ($224,986), courts
building ($222,660), and the detention building ($293,432). Only detention
building costs were allowable to be charged to the grant, and the pay
application evidences that those costs totaled 39 percent of the total, not
51 percent. The Navajo Nation provided an explanation, a worksheet, and
invoice and accounting documentation. However, the pay application
amounts did not match the worksheet amounts and, therefore, still do not
adequately support the allocated furniture amount charged to the grant.
This recommendation can be closed when we receive adequate
documentation to support the $462,732 questioned for the three remaining
unsupported expenditures.
3.	 Remedy $2,554,924 in unallowable questioned costs for Grant
Numbers 2009-ST-B9-0089 and 2009-ST-B9-0100.
Resolved. OJP agreed with the recommendation, and stated that it would
coordinate with the NDPS to remedy the $2,554,924 in unallowable
questioned costs.
The Navajo Nation stated it partially concurred with the recommendation.
For Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089, the Navajo Nation did not concur with
our finding of $528,082 in unallowable court relocation costs, and provided
an explanation that the relocation costs were not charged to the grant. We
reviewed the documentation submitted with Navajo Nation’s response and
determined it showed the court relocation expenses and included an
allocation to the grant and to a non-grant account, but did not prove that the
court relocation expenses were charged to the non-grant account.
Therefore, we determined the documentation provided was not adequate to
remedy this questioned cost.
For Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089, the Navajo Nation partially concurred
with our finding of $815,428 in 21 non-grant expenditures that were charged
to the grant. The Navajo Nation concurred with two expenditures, one for
$27,276 and one for $121,805, totaling $149,081 in unallowable
expenditures for the Crownpoint project that were charged to the grant. The
Navajo Nation stated that it will make an accounting transfer to move these
expenditures from Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089 to the appropriate
43


non-grant account. The Navajo Nation partially concurred with our finding of
the remaining 19 non-grant expenditures totaling $666,166. For 17 of these
19 non-grant expenditures, the Navajo Nation agreed the expenses, totaling
$628,178, were inappropriately transferred to the grant account. For one of
the two remaining non-grant expenditures, totaling $27,012, the Navajo
Nation agreed that the funds should be transferred to a non-grant account,
but believed the amount should be $25,179 rather than $27,012. The
Navajo Nation did not provide any documentation to support the
$1,833 difference. The Navajo Nation stated that it will make accounting
transfers to the appropriate non-grant account for the 18 non-grant
expenditures. For the remaining expenditure, in the amount of $10,977, the
Navajo Nation stated no action was required as it was not charged to the
ARRA account. For that expenditure, the Navajo Nation provided an
accounting document that showed only $31,822 of the $50,793 invoice was
charged to the grant on July 2, 2012. However, the document also stated
that the invoice was underpaid by $18,972 due to insufficient funds for the
Tuba City project; that amount (which included the $10,977 questioned
expense) was subsequently paid and charged to the grant on October 9,
2012. Therefore, this expenditure is questioned as unallowable.
For Grant Numbers 2009-ST-B9-0089 and 2009-ST-B9-0100, the Navajo
Nation partially concurred with our findings of $1,211,594 in expenditures
that were charged to the grants prior to receipt of environmental clearance
from BJA. The Navajo Nation stated that it attended grant management
seminars and understood that grant funds could be obligated and expended
prior to environmental clearance, if the funds were expended for activities
that did not “break ground.” However, according to the grant special
conditions, the recipient could not obligate, expend, or draw down any funds
until the program office has verified that all necessary environmental impact
documentation had been submitted to the program office. The Navajo Nation
stated it will request that BJA review and provide retroactive approval of the
expenditures that occurred prior to receipt of environmental clearance.
This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation

demonstrating that the $2,554,924 of questioned costs for unallowable

expenditures charged to Grant Numbers 2009-ST-B9-0089 and

2009-ST-B9-0100 have been appropriately remedied.

4.	 Remedy $16,669 in unallocated matching costs for Grant Number
2009-IP-BX-0074.
Resolved. OJP agreed with the recommendation, and stated that it would
coordinate with NDPS to remedy the $16,669 in unallocated matching costs
charged to Grant Number 2009-IP-BX-0074.
The Navajo Nation stated it concurred with the recommendation and had
initiated a waiver request, but it was never submitted. We reviewed a copy

44


of that request during our fieldwork. The Navajo Nation stated it will ask BJA
for a retroactive waiver of the match requirement for this grant.
This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation that the
match requirement for this grant has been remedied.
5.	 Ensure NDPS meets the match requirement for Grant Number
2009-ST-B9-0100 by the end of the grant.
Closed. OJP agreed with the recommendation, and stated that it would
coordinate with NDPS to ensure that the matching requirement was met for
Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0100.
The Navajo Nation stated it did not concur with the recommendation because
the Navajo Nation has already met the match requirement. The Navajo
Nation provided accounting documentation to support that $3,517,253 was
transferred to the grant from a non-grant account. We reviewed the
documentation and determined it adequately addressed our
recommendation.
6.	 Remedy $535,545 in funds to better use associated with unexpended
grant funds for Grant Numbers 2008-IP-BX-0036 and
2009-ST-B9-0089.
Closed. OJP agreed with the recommendation, and provided documentation
showing that it deobligated $9,620 in undrawn funds for Grant Number
2008-IP-BX-0036 on June 17, 2015, and $525,925 in undrawn funds for
Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089 were deobligated on June 23, 2015.
The Navajo Nation stated it concurred with the recommendation. For Grant
Number 2008-IP-BX-0036, the Navajo Nation stated that there was an
unused balance of $9,620, and that all goals and objectives of the grant were
completed. For Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089, the Navajo Nation stated
that there was an unused balance of $525,925, and that DOC would submit
documentation to OOC to transfer funds for the grant account as appropriate.
However, OJP deobligated the undrawn funds for this grant on June 23,
2015; therefore the Navajo Nation could not draw down the unused balance.
We reviewed the documentation provided by OJP and determined it

adequately addressed our recommendation.

7.	 Ensure that NDPS implements a process to submit FFRs that
accurately reflect expenditures for each reporting period.
Closed. OJP agreed with the recommendation, and stated that NDPS had
provided written procedures to ensure that future FFRs accurately reflect
expenditures.

45


The Navajo Nation stated it partially concurred with the recommendation,
and provided an explanation and documentation of the processes by which it
prepares FFRs, and for monitoring and oversight of the Navajo Nation’s grant
programs. We reviewed the documentation provided and determined that it
adequately addressed our recommendation.
8.	 Remedy $290,116 in unallowable expenditures associated with
unnecessary planning grants for Grant Numbers 2008-IP-BX-0036
and 2009-IP-BX-0074.
Unresolved. OJP and the Navajo Nation disagreed with the recommendation
and stated that the planning grants were necessary for design and planning
for Dilkon and Kayenta correctional facilities. Both OJP and the Navajo
Nation provided several reasons for disagreement, which are analyzed
separately later in this section.
In summary, we reviewed explanations and documentation from OJP and the
Navajo Nation and sustain the recommendation based on the fact that
Navajo Nation was awarded the grant to develop plans for regional
correctional facilities in Tuba City and Kayenta, although a detailed plan
already existed, which Navajo Nation used as a technical guide in
constructing other prison facilities. Specifically and as discussed in our audit
report, the Navajo Nation’s March 2007 master plan was intended to address
justice system needs for locations across the Navajo Nation, including Tuba
City, Dilkon, and Kayenta. The master plan was created using districtspecific site information, population data, and input from justice system
stakeholders. The master plan contained detailed data for each location,
including construction budgets and broad facility purposes, such as
detention, courts, and police, as well as individual facility needs, including
number of inmate beds, square footage of specific rooms, and even
requirements as specific as beverage station and refrigerator sizes. The
master plan also included designed prototypes and options for developing the
facilities. As a result, it was readily usable as a design plan for the Tuba City
and Kayenta correctional facilities built between 2010 and 2015, particularly
when Navajo Nation used the master plan for just that purpose when building
new justice centers at Crownpoint and Chinle starting in 2010 and still
ongoing for Chinle. Crownpoint was built at the same time as the Tuba City
facility by the same general contractor.
Additionally, we found that the Kayenta planning grant application was
submitted on March 3, 2009, to develop plans for a correctional facility in
Kayenta. Less than two months later, on May 3, 2009, the Navajo Nation
submitted an application for Recovery Act funds to construct a correctional
facility. As a Recovery Act award, the project was “shovel ready” meaning
construction could begin within 180 days and, according to the Navajo
Nation’s submitted timeline, construction would begin in February 2010. In
the Recovery Act application, the Navajo Nation stated that it had already
funded planning portions of the Kayenta project to complete site evaluations,
46


assessments, and architectural design services and that the project was
ready to move into construction. Because planning was already complete
based on the statements made by the Navajo Nation in the application for
Recovery Act construction funds, funds for the planning grant were not
necessary. This is further demonstrated by the fact that in June 2010 the
Navajo Nation attempted to repurpose these planning grant funds, which OJP
denied. In this June 2010 request, the Navajo Nation was requesting to use
the planning grant funds for the development of policies, procedures, and
training for Navajo Nation corrections personnel as they transition into the
new facility, which OJP determined was not within the CSCATL Program
objectives. The Navajo Nation then submitted a project extension for the
planning grant to “enhance the current master plan for the Kayenta
community.” Since the master plan was already complete in March 2007,
these funds were not necessary for the Navajo Nation and could have been
awarded to another applicant.
For the Tuba City planning grant, the Navajo Nation submitted the grant
application on June 25, 2008, to develop plans for a correctional facility in
Tuba City. The grant was awarded on September 15, 2008. Less than a
year later, and before any of the planning grant funds were spent, the
Navajo Nation submitted an application on April 29, 2009 for Recovery Act
funds to build a correctional facility. The application for the Recovery Act
funds stated that the March 2007 master plan included land withdrawals, site
assessments, and evaluations. Additionally, as a Recovery Act award, the
project was “shovel ready” meaning construction could begin within 180 days
and, according to the Navajo Nation’s submitted timeline, construction would
begin in February 2010. Again, because planning was already complete in
order to proceed to construction, funds for the planning grant were not
necessary. This is further demonstrated by the fact that Navajo Nation
attempted to repurpose the funds in June 2010 for the development of
policies, procedures, and training for Navajo Nation corrections personnel as
they transition into the new facility. OJP determined this purpose was not
within the CSCATL Program objectives, and therefore denied that request.
However, Navajo Nation submitted another request to repurpose the
planning grant funds in November 2011 stating that “the DOC has not been
able to use the funds allocated for the Tuba City Multi-Purpose Justice Center
due to plans being near complete when the planning funds were allocated in
September 2008.” This scope change was approved by OJP, although it is
clear that the original purpose for the grant was no longer applicable since
the master plan was already complete in March 2007. We determined that
the Navajo Nation substantially relied on the master plan for planning
purposes. As a result, other applicants that could have used the funds for
the designated program planning purposes were denied a funding
opportunity so that Navajo Nation could receive the grants for that purpose,
although it did not need funds for planning.
Our detailed analysis of OJP’s and Navajo Nations’ individual bases for
disagreement is discussed in the following sections.
47


Office of Justice Programs Response to Recommendation 8
In its response, OJP stated it had performed another review of the
applications for these grants, and determined the Navajo Nation had
provided an outline to comprehensively plan for correctional facilities in Tuba
City and Kayenta. We analyzed OJP’s statements and bases for
disagreement identified in the following sections.
OJP stated in its response that there was no mention in these
applications that the Navajo Nation had produced a reservation-wide
Public Safety Facilities Master Plan in 2007.
However, our analysis indicated that even though the Navajo Nation did not
mention the existing master plan to OJP in its applications for these grants,
the Navajo Nation was aware when it applied for these planning grants that it
had recently developed its own master plan for correctional facilities
eliminating the need for the Navajo Nation to apply for these planning
grants. As a result, we believe the Navajo Nation should have disclosed the
existence of the plan in its application since it had direct implications for
Navajo Nation’s need for additional funds for further planning.
OJP stated in its response that it determined that the master plan
provided an overall vision of correctional services throughout the
Navajo Nation.
We disagree and note that the Navajo Nation built correctional facilities at
Crownpoint and Chinle following the parameters stated in the existing master
plan. As a result, it is clear that this 2007 master plan was used by the
Navajo Nation as actual technical guidance in at least one other completed
construction project at Crownpoint, and therefore sufficed for more than just
an overall vision.
OJP stated that the master plan made recommendations and provided
prototypes for the types of facilities and services that would best
address the needs for the various judicial districts across the
reservation.
We agree, and conclude that this information supports our finding that these
grants were unnecessary, as the existing master plan already addressed the
needs and provided prototype design and space planning for each district,
including Tuba City, Dilkon, and Kayenta.
OJP stated in its response that it determined that the master plan did
not eliminate the need for planning activities for site-specific
construction…specific to the Tuba City (later Dilkon, Arizona) and
Kayenta facilities.

48


Our analysis indicated that the Navajo Nation initially applied for Grant
Number 2008-IP-BX-0036 for planning at Tuba City, Arizona. However, this
grant was subsequently redirected to change the scope to planning at Dilkon,
Arizona, because the Navajo Nation had funded planning that was already in
progress at Tuba City. Because planning was already in progress at Tuba
City, there was no need for the Navajo Nation to apply for the Tuba City
planning grant. Additionally, for each of the three locations mentioned by
BJA, the Navajo Nation had already developed its comprehensive master
plan. Finally, as stated previously in this report, a non-DOJ-funded
correctional facility was built at Crownpoint and is under construction at
Chinle following the parameters stated in the Navajo Nation’s existing master
plan.
OJP stated that these grants were used to review the needs and
modify the [Navajo Nation’s] master plan prototypes specific to each
location and facility.
This justification does not make these grants necessary, because the Navajo
Nation’s master plan was used to construct facilities that were not funded by
DOJ grants. As stated previously, the Navajo Nation built a correctional
facility at Crownpoint and is building a facility at Chinle following the
parameters stated in the Navajo Nation’s existing master plan. Additionally,
both planning grants were subsequently repurposed due to the fact that
planning had been completed for both facilities. The actions by the Navajo
Nation expressly reflect the fact that there was no need for it to apply for the
planning grants.
Navajo Nation Response to Recommendation 8
The Navajo Nation stated it did not concur with the recommendation. We
analyze statements from the Navajo Nation’s response in the following
sections.
The Navajo Nation stated that each planning grant funded a needs
assessment that focused on the local community (respectively, Dilkon
and Kayenta) and was to provide information for use in designing and
constructing a correctional facility at each location.
For Grant Number 2008-IP-BX-0036, we note that the Navajo Nation
originally applied for and was awarded a planning grant for the Tuba City
location. The Navajo Nation then re-scoped the grant to Dilkon because, as
stated in its scope change request, the “Navajo Nation Tax Fund had paid for
most of the Tuba City facility planning.” The Navajo Nation also attempted to
re-scope the Kayenta grant because it asserted that the planning was
complete, which OJP denied because the change did not meet the intent of
the CSCATL Program. Again, in our judgment, if the Tuba City facility
planning was already being performed with Navajo Nation funds, there was
no need to apply for this grant. More importantly, during our audit, Navajo
49


Nation officials were unable to provide us with any planning documents for
Tuba City other than the March 2007 master plan.
The Navajo Nation stated that the March 2007 master plan was
intended as a “vision” that addressed proposed justice system services
for the entire Navajo Nation, by presenting prototypes to be adapted
for each specific project. The Navajo Nation also stated that the March
2007 master plan was created on a Navajo Nation-wide scale, while
the planning grants were specific to Dilkon and Kayenta.
We note that the master plan provided specific information for each project
location, including Tuba City, Dilkon, and Kayenta. We also note that the
Navajo Nation built a justice center at Crownpoint and is building a justice
center at Chinle based on the parameters stated in the March 2007 master
plan. For each location, the master plan stated construction budgets and
facility purposes, such as detention, courts, and police, and also stated
facility needs, including inmate beds, square footage of specific rooms, and
requirements as specific as beverage station and refrigerator sizes. As the
following excerpt from the 2007 March master plan shows, the plan itself
stated that it was intended to address the needs of each District:
This master plan has established size, concept, location and cost
parameters for these projects. Cost is the only variable that can
change with time. Therefore, it is necessary to proceed with the
schedule. A notice to proceed will begin the rest of the schedule
process, and assure adherence to the estimated cost of the
projects.
This document is the result of the several months long master
planning effort, which included the following:
•	 A series of Interactions between staff and administration
of Courts, Corrections and Police from all Districts and
Consultants
•	 A study of existing reports, data, plans, and projections of
growth across the Navajo Nation
•	 A consensus building workshop that considered the
individual needs of the Districts, as well as the Navajo
Nation as a whole
•	 A follow-up meeting with members of the steering
committee and staff
The result of these efforts was the development of a detailed
prototypical Architectural Space Program for each component.
This Space Program itemizes all functional components of the
50


four buildings, as well as the detailed spaces to be included in
each facility. These programs were used to estimate the total
square footage necessary for the large/medium/small district
facilities as well as the Navajo Correctional Rehabilitation
Center.
From the summary of the space required, budget cost data was
applied assuming a February 2008 beginning construction date.
Cost data was then applied to each component, and potential
design and construction schedules were developed for each
facility type. These prototypical programs will need to be
adjusted during design to accommodate variations in staffing
and operations for each District location.
Site conditions and recommendations for specific sites within
each District were evaluated concurrently, and the resulting
findings are summarized in this report.
To clarify, the prototypical adjustments refer to architectural designing which
occurs as part of the construction grants, not planning grants.
As a result, our opinion remains that these planning grants were unnecessary
and unallowable. This recommendation can be resolved when we receive
evidence that OJP has developed an adequate action plan to remedy the
planning grants, or has completed other actions that address the
recommendation.
9.	 Remedy $32,034,623 in unallowable expenditures associated with
excessive building sizes for Grant Numbers 2009-ST-B9-0089 and
2009-ST-B9-0100.
Unresolved. OJP partially agreed with the recommendation, and the Navajo
Nation disagreed with the recommendation. OJP and the Navajo Nation both
stated that they disagreed that the Navajo Nation constructed facilities of
excessive size. Both OJP and the Navajo Nation provided several reasons for
disagreement, which are analyzed separately later in this section.
In summary, we reviewed explanations and documentation from OJP and the
Navajo Nation, and sustain the recommendation based on the fact that
Navajo Nation stated specific need for Tuba City and Kayenta through its
applications for Grant Numbers 2009-ST-B9-0089 and 2009-ST-B9-0100, but
was awarded approximately $32 million in excess of stated need. As a
result, the Navajo Nation increased the size of both facilities without approval
and built facilities much larger than its stated need or ability to operate.
Specifically, the Tuba City and Kayenta facilities were built to accommodate
132 and 80 adult inmates, respectively. However, according to data reported
to the BIA by the Navajo Nation, Tuba City had a high of 49 prisoners in the
facility on one day between 2008 and 2014, with a monthly average of only
51


17.6 inmates. For 2014, which was the first full year of operations at the
new Tuba City facility, the maximum number of inmates was 36 while the
average monthly occupancy was only 15.6. At Kayenta, there was a high of
24 inmates between 2008 and 2014, and a monthly average of only
9 inmates. The new Kayenta facility remains unopened. Based on the
average monthly data reported to the BIA, the Tuba City and Kayenta inmate
capacities are 749 and 885 percent larger than the need demonstrated.
The Navajo Nation disagreed with this data and therefore offered alternative
data in its response indicating an average number of 66 inmates for Tuba
City and 16 inmates for Kayenta. We further analyze later in our response
this latest data provided by the Navajo Nation, and although we discuss later
our concerns with the relevance of the new data, even taking the new data at
face value indicates that the Tuba City and Kayenta facilities were built 200
and 500 percent larger than need, respectively. Further, construction of the
Crownpoint facility was completed with 48 beds, construction is on-going for
the facility at Chinle, and construction is still planned for the facility at
Shiprock. As these facilities continue to open and become operational, the
bed space needs stated by the Navajo Nation will be distributed among the
new facilities, reducing actual need and occupancy in Tuba City and Kayenta.
We also noted that, due to funding constraints at the BIA, the Navajo Nation
does not have the resources to operate those facilities at capacity. In
actuality, the Navajo Nation only has the staff to manage 2 of the 11 pods
that can hold up to 24 inmates at the Tuba City facility, which is 82 percent
below the intended capacity. The Kayenta facility remains unopened. As
stated in our report, the BIA expressed concerns to the BJA and Navajo
Nation regarding the large size of the facilities; however OJP stated in its
response that it coordinated the building design with the BIA and that the
BIA never expressed any concerns. Part of that discrepancy may have been
related to the discrepancies in planned bed spaces, which OJP admits existed
with regard to the March 2007 master plan and OJP’s knowledge of the
project. We never received documentation approving the increased building
size and bed spaces. While OJP indicates in its response that bed spaces did
not affect the scope of the project, this also conflicts with information we
received from an OJP official during our fieldwork, who stated such a change
would require OJP approval. It also conflicts with the OJP Financial Guide,
which states that a change in scope that requires a GAN includes a change in
scope the affects the budget. As shown, the increase in bed space increased
the total cost of the facilities by approximately $25 million at Tuba City and
$8 million at Kayenta. This is a change in the budget that would, therefore,
require a scope change. Additionally, such changes should have required
approval as the additional space necessitates additional resources to manage
larger capacities and should have been coordinated with the BIA. We believe
that the lack of approvals and diligent oversight with regard to those changes
may have contributed to the apparent miscommunications with the BIA, and
thereby resulting in the Tuba City facility that only has resources to operate
at 18 percent of the total capacity, as well as potential funding issues with
52


the Kayenta facility once it is operational. The Navajo Nation also reported
that the Crownpoint correctional facility with 48 beds “is not receiving
sufficient operation and maintenance funding and is not being used to its full
capacity.” Therefore, none of the large correctional facilities are being used
to their full potential, even the facility that was built with Navajo Nation’s
funds to the size stated in the master plan.
Finally, both OJP and Navajo Nation indicated that the size and capacities of
the facilities are not excessive given Navajo Nation’s population, calls for
police service, and general criminal justice needs. Specifically, Navajo Nation
had decreased arrests due to crimes that were not being prosecuted as a
result of jail space limitations. OJP stated in its response that in December
2014, the agreement with the DOJ that prevented the Navajo Nation from
housing inmates on its land, was lifted in part due to the Tuba City facility
being constructed, as well as other facilities increasing the incarceration
capacity. Despite these statements, the Navajo Nation stated it “might reach
out to BIA to lease jail bed spaces.” The Navajo Nation having jail bed space
to consider leasing demonstrates its facilities were built in excess of need.
Also, the March 2007 master plan was a comprehensive plan for the entire
nation that factored in needs of each locality, individually and collectively.
Additionally, Navajo Nation could not provide any data to justify its prediction
of an increasing jail population. All the data that was presented to us,
including the BIA data discussed previously and our observations during
fieldwork identifying only 2 of the 11 pods in use at Tuba City, supports the
conclusion that the capacities of those prisons are unjustifiably in excess of
the Navajo Nation’s need in those regions and of its ability to fully operate
the facilities as constructed.
The need for $70.2 million in grant funding should be justified and supported
by factual data, which we have yet to be provided. Of particular concern are
other tribes who likely had greater need and applied but were denied for
these Recovery Act funds so that the Navajo Nation could receive
$35.6 million in excess funding to build one facility that remains unopened,
and another facility that is 82 percent vacant. With these excess funds, we
estimate that at least three other Recovery Act projects could have been
funded to address the justice system needs at other tribes.
Our detailed analysis of OJP’s and Navajo Nation’s individual bases for
disagreement is discussed in the following sections.
Office of Justice Programs Response to Recommendation 9
We analyzed OJP’s statements and basis for disagreement identified in the
following sections.
OJP stated in its response that the terminology used by the Navajo
Nation for Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0089 changed in terms of

53


square footage and inmate beds, but that it was apparent to OJP that
the Tuba City project was going to be around 132 beds.
In its application for this grant, the Navajo Nation stated it would build the
facility in accordance with the Navajo Nation’s March 2007 master plan. That
master plan stated that a 48 bed facility was needed at Tuba City, and OJP
officials previously informed us that they had received a copy of that master
plan. Navajo Nation submitted progress reports to OJP throughout this
grant, which showed gradual increases in inmate beds, from 48 to 132 beds.
Navajo Nation did not provide documentation supporting the justification for
a 275 percent increase in the number of inmate beds, and it is our continued
opinion that the Tuba City corrections facility was built materially in excess of
need. Additionally, on March 19, 2015, we asked OJP officials about the
increase in beds, and they were unable to provide a reason why the bed
count increased. During fieldwork, the BJA also informed us that a GAN
should have been requested for increased inmate beds as this would be
considered a change in project scope, which contradicted OJP’s response to
this report indicating that such a GAN was not necessary because the size of
the facility did not change. The OJP Financial Guide states that a change in
scope that requires a GAN includes a change in scope the affects the budget.
As shown, the increase in bed space increased the total cost of the facility by
approximately $25 million. This is a significant change in the budget and
would, therefore, require a scope change approved through a GAN.
OJP stated in its response that for Grant Number 2009-ST-B9-0100,
the Kayenta project had increased in scope and bed size, which was
approved by OJP through GAN 14 on August 7, 2012.
OJP provided a copy of GAN 14, which the Navajo Nation requested and
received to construct a support building with excess grant funds. In its GAN
request, the Navajo Nation requested “a scope change to construct a Support
building in addition to the corrections facility” and also mentioned as
background information that “currently, with the programming changes
instead of a 32-bed facility, NDOC will construct an 80 bed adult correction
facility with a 4 bed temporary holding for Juvenile.” The expansion from
32 to 80 adult beds was stated in the GAN request, but OJP did not state in
its approval that the increase in number of inmate beds was approved.
Specifically, OJP stated in GAN 14 that “the Navajo Department of
Corrections has planned for a correctional facility, and in the planning it had
some funding available for a program support building. Based upon this, the
NDOC will be adding a support building to construct with funds. Therefore
the scope of work will change.” Twelve additional pages of supporting
documentation included in the GAN request only discussed the addition of a
support building, and provided no justification for increasing the number of
beds at Kayenta. We concluded that OJP’s approval of GAN 14 was also only
for the support building. We were not provided documentation that the
change in bed space from 32 to 80 adult beds was ever officially approved.
Additionally, the Navajo Nation’s March 2007 master plan stated that only
54


32 beds were needed at Kayenta. OJP did not request or provide any
documentation supporting the need for the 250 percent increase in the
number of inmate beds.
OJP stated in its response that the Navajo Nation has a population of
approximately 250,000 across an area the size of West Virginia, and
that the addition of 212 inmate beds at Tuba City and Kayenta was
therefore not excessive for that population.
We note that Tuba City and Kayenta were not the only corrections facilities
being built on the Navajo Nation, and neither location is centrally located for
easy access from other districts. The Navajo Nation has received a number
of DOJ grants in recent years for renovation of existing corrections facilities,
and has also constructed a number of new corrections facilities with DOJ
grants and non-DOJ funds. Specifically, a judicial complex including a
48-bed corrections facility was built in Crownpoint, a judicial complex is
currently under construction at Chinle, and a new facility is planned for
Shiprock starting in 2016. According to the Navajo Nation’s March 2007
master plan, each of those locations needed a 48 bed facility. In total the
March 2007 master plan stated a need for a total of 13 new facilities in
12 districts across the Navajo Nation: five Large District (48 beds each),
three Medium District (32 beds each), four Small District (16 beds each), and
one standalone Correctional Rehabilitation Center (388 beds). Per the
master plan, the Tuba City and Kayenta corrections facilities were intended
to serve the local needs for 2 of 12 districts across the Navajo Nation.
Therefore, we believe the geographic size of the entire Navajo Nation and its
overall population are not applicable to the size of this one facility,
particularly since the master plan was designed to address overall need, and
yet was not followed. This information does not justify such large increases
in the size of these two facilities, particularly because it is apparent that
Navajo Nation does not have the capacity to staff or the inmates to fill the
facilities, which remains unopened at Kayenta and 82 percent vacant at
TubaCity.
OJP stated in its response that there was some discrepancy with the
recommended size for the facilities in relation to the 2007 Master Plan,
but no formal scope change was required since size requirements for
Tuba City and Kayenta were not specific to inmate bed counts.
It is our opinion that increases of 250 percent and 275 percent are significant
with respect to the Navajo Nation’s stated need for the grant, as measured
by bed space for inmates. While the Navajo Nation’s application documents
for these grants did not specify bed counts for either location, each
application stated that the Navajo Nation was applying for the grant based on
the Navajo Nation’s March 2007 master plan, which made the master plan an
inseparable part of each application. Each application stated specific square
footages for each location, and the master plan stated those same square
footages for each location. The master plan provided construction budgets
55


that exactly matched the grant application amounts, and the master plan
also stated the number of inmate beds needed for each location. The data
we have been provided supports the need stated in the application for
48-bed and 32-bed facilities. We have not been provided verifiable
information that supports the combined 525 percent increase in incarceration
capacity. While conducting fieldwork in February 2015, a NDPS official stated
that the correctional facility sizes were increased after learning they would
not be able to build the court and law enforcement building with the
Recovery Act funding. Based on our audit results, we determined that the
project scope at each site was expanded due to excess funds available
through the grant, but not actual need for such a large facility. With these
excess funds, at least three other Recovery Act projects could have been
funded to address the justice system needs at other tribes.
Navajo Nation Response to Recommendation 9
The Navajo Nation also stated it did not concur with the recommendation.
We analyze statements from the Navajo Nation’s response in the following
sections.
The Navajo Nation stated that the building sizes were not excessive,
because each grant built a smaller square footage building than was
stated in the grant application materials.
The Navajo Nation does not discuss in its response that the grant
applications were based on the total square footages stated in the March
2007 master plan. For Tuba City, the master plan stated need for a 111,848
square foot multi-purpose justice center, composed of a 48-bed correctional
facility, a courthouse, and a police station, at a budget of $38,587,560.
NDPS applied for and was awarded the grant based on that information, but
then used the entire grant amount to build a 132 bed correctional facility,
and used non-grant funds to build the court building and police station. As
Table 4 in our report shows, the grant-funded correctional facility was
increased from 52,790 square feet to 87,709 square feet, while the
non-grant-funded buildings were constructed 2,724 square feet smaller than
the master plan stated was needed. Contract documentation for Tuba City
construction showed that the entire multi-purpose facility was initially going
to be built in accordance with the master plan using a loan, but after the
grant was awarded, the court and police buildings were built with the loan
and the corrections space was built with the grant. Documentation also
stated that the Tuba City corrections building was expanded in size because
of receipt of the grant.
For Kayenta, the master plan stated the need for a 91,036 square foot
multi-purpose justice center, composed of a 32-bed correctional facility, a
courthouse, and a police station, at a budget of $31,407,420. NDPS applied
for and was awarded the grant based on that information, but then used the
grant amount to build an 80-adult bed correctional facility and a police
56


station, and then did not build the court component. As Table 5 in our report
shows, the grant-funded correctional facility was increased from 47,727
square feet to 54,455 square feet, the police station was increased from
10,232 square feet to 13,427 square feet, and the 28,265 square foot judicial
component was not built. The total square footage built with the grant was
smaller than stated in the master plan because the judicial component was
not built. Furthermore, despite the 21 percent reduction in square footage
built, the Navajo Nation still spent the entire grant.
The Navajo Nation also made the following assertions to justify the
275 percent increase in inmate beds at Tuba City and the 250 percent
increase in inmate beds at Kayenta.
Grant Applications
The Navajo Nation stated that while the grant applications mentioned
the master plan, the applications did not specifically state the number
of inmate beds needed.
However, the program abstract, application narrative, and application budget
for each construction grant specifically referenced the March 2007 master
plan, which, again, makes the March 2007 master plan an integral and
inseparable part of the Navajo Nation’s application. The application for each
grant requested the exact dollar amount and square footage stated in the
master plan for the entire justice complex at each site: $38,587,560 for
111,848 square feet at Tuba City and $31,407,420 for 91,036 square feet at
Kayenta. The Navajo Nation also provided a copy of the master plan to the
BJA. As mentioned, once the Navajo Nation learned they could not build the
entire justice complex with Recovery Act funds, the sizes of the correctional
facilities were increased. The increases were not justified to or officially
approved by OJP.
Master Plan
The Navajo Nation stated that the master plan prototypes were
intended to be “adjusted during design to accommodate variations in
staffing and operations for each District location.”
A 275 percent increase in inmate beds at Tuba City and 250 percent increase
in inmate beds at Kayenta, are, in our opinion, more than an accommodation
of variations in staffing and operations. As we noted previously, the master
plan included district-specific data and stakeholder input, and contract
documentation specifically stated that the Tuba City facility was enlarged
solely because the grant was received.

57


Increases in Number of Beds
The Navajo Nation stated that inmate beds were increased as a result
of meetings with the Navajo Nation, its project manager, and the
general contractor.
OJP officials told us that increases in bed counts would be considered a scope
change which would have required a GAN, although this contradicts OJP’s
current response to our report, which states no GAN was needed. According
to the OJP Financial Guide, a change in scope that requires a GAN includes a
change in scope the affects the budget. As shown, the increase in bed space
increased the total cost of the facility by approximately $25 million. No GAN
was requested for the Tuba City location related to increases in inmate bed
counts or construction costs for the detention facility. The GAN submitted to
add the support building stated funds were available to support the project
scope change. As part of the GAN request, the Navajo Nation mentioned
program changes from 32 beds to 80 adult beds. However, the Navajo
Nation’s GAN request was only to add a support building. The supporting
documentation provided was also only for the addition of the support
building. Ultimately, OJP’s approval was also only for the support building.
As such, the Navajo Nation never received formal approval from OJP to
expand the bed count from 32 to 80 adult beds.
After receiving the Navajo Nation’s response to the draft report, we
conducted another review of the 2012 planning study provided by the Navajo
Nation that stated 80 adult beds were needed at Kayenta. However, we
found evidence to question the validity of the study. Specifically, Navajo
Nation started re-design of the corrections facility and added the support
building to the project scope in January and February 2011, respectively.
Both events occurred over one year before the planning study was complete.
Further, an NDPS official told us that the correctional facility sizes were
increased due to the realization that the Navajo Nation could only build the
correctional facility with grant funds rather than the entire justice complex.
That information led us to scrutinize the study further, and we found that it
showed a 4.4 percent decrease in Kayenta’s general population from 2000 to
2010, yet projected a 1 percent increase from 2011 to 2021 “based on
economic growth within Kayenta and anticipated migration”. However, no
data was presented to support the 1 percent increase. We also found the
study added 22 beds for “unmet needs as defined by the stakeholders,” an
unsupported increase of nearly 38 percent.
Rehabilitation Center
The Navajo Nation stated that the size of the detention components in
the March 2007 master plan was based on the planned construction of
a larger Navajo Correctional Rehabilitation Center, and the Tuba City
and Kayenta facilities were expanded because the Rehabilitation
Center was not built.
58


According to the master plan, the rehabilitation center would be a 388-bed
correctional facility planned for a central location, and the master plan
suggested Shiprock, New Mexico, as a possible location. Tuba City and
Kayenta are not centrally located on the Navajo Nation—Kayenta is more
than 100 miles west of Shiprock and Tuba City is about 175 miles west of
Shiprock. Additionally, contract documentation specifically stated that the
Tuba City facility was enlarged because the grant was received; there was no
mention of using the Tuba City facility to eliminate need for the Rehabilitation
Center in any project documentation. Finally, the BIA has stated that
funding would not be available to fund the Tuba City facility in full.
Currently, the Tuba City facility only has 10 correctional officers to operate
the 132-bed facility. As a result, only 2 of the 11 pods can be used.
According to a status report submitted to the Law and Order Committee of
the Navajo Nation, the Crownpoint facility, which is a very large structure, “is
not receiving sufficient operation and maintenance funding and is not being
used to its full capacity yet, whereas another area could have benefited from
the same type of facility and services.” As a result of building excessively
large correctional facilities, the Navajo Nation does not have funding to fully
operate any of the DOJ and non-DOJ funded buildings.
Calls for Service and Other Statistical Data
Prior to the issuance of this report in final, the Navajo Nation provided
statistics in addition to calls for service and court case statistics from 2000 to
2014 originally provided in the Navajo Nation’s response related to the Tuba
City and Kayenta districts. The new statistics included calls for service,
arrests, new bookings, and court case data. Upon further of review of this
new data, we determined that it conflicted with the other data provided by
the Navajo Nation in its response. Further, it conflicted with data that
Navajo Nation reported to the BIA. As a result, we could not validate its
reliability as Navajo Nation did not provide supporting documentation for the
data. Additionally, the calls for service, arrest data, and new booking
information does not necessarily correlate to bed space usage at either
facility as some of these arrests and bookings could result in overnight stays
in a temporary holding cells rather than longer-term stays which would use
bed space. As a result, this type of data neither supports the Navajo Nation’s
claims that the need for incarceration capacity is on an upward trajectory,
nor adequately supports Navajo Nation’s contention that it needs such a
large facility. As stated previously, all of the data we have been provided
regarding actual inmate populations, as well as our own observations on site,
evidence that the facilities were built in significant excess of actual need, at a
significant cost to the government. As of 2014 the average daily population,
which takes into account the length of stay, was 15.6 inmates for Tuba City
and 10.9 inmates for Kayenta. The new data did not indicate that those
figures were incorrect, and they were based on figures that the Navajo
Nation reported to BIA directly. Further, these numbers do not support the
Navajo Nation’s claim of increased need for jail space beyond the planned
59


48 beds at Tuba City and 32 beds at Kayenta, regardless of how many calls
for service, arrests, bookings, or court cases it has.
Police Officer, Prosecutor, and Court Judgment
The Navajo Nation stated that arrests and jail occupancy are

influenced by factors including judgment of police officers, prosecutors,

and judges, who can all be influenced by current jail occupancy.

However, those factors would have been addressed in the planning process
for the March 2007 master plan. As a result, the Navajo Nation should have
followed the capacities identified in the master plan rather than increasing
capacities without support and express OJP approval for additional need. As
the master plan stated:
This document is the result of the several months long master
planning effort, which included the following:
•	 A series of interactions between staff and administration
of Courts, Corrections and Police from all Districts and
Consultants;
•	 A study of existing reports, data, plans, and projections of
growth across the Navajo Nation;
•	 A consensus building workshop that considered the
Individual needs of the Districts, as well as the Navajo
Nation as a whole; and
•	 A follow-up meeting with members of the steering
committee and staff.
Jail Occupancy
DOC provided statistics which stated that for January through June
2015, average daily occupancy for Kayenta ranged from 15 to
17 inmates and average daily occupancy for Tuba City ranged from
51 to 66 inmates.
We note that during our February 2015 fieldwork, we observed only one cell
in use during our tour of the old Kayenta jail, which had 2 cells that could
hold up to 30 inmates. At the new Tuba City facility, DOC officials informed
us that only 2 of the 11 pods were staffed with DOC personnel, thereby
resulting in a total capacity of 24 inmates for the Tuba City facility.
According to NDPS officials, one of the two pods in use at Tuba City housed
inmates from the Kayenta district that would be move to the Kayenta facility
once opened. Additionally, the new statistics provided by DOC did not break
down which inmates were housed in cells with inmate beds designed to hold
60


inmates for long-term stays and which inmates were housed in holding
cells – larger rooms that accommodate large groups of people for short-term
overnight or day-long stays. While we were onsite at Tuba City, we noted
that most of the inmates were in holding cells, thereby leaving the prison
82 percent vacant. The Navajo Nation also stated that the BIA data only
shows data as of the end of the month and new bookings. However, we
noted that the BIA data, which was provided to BIA by DOC, also included
statistics about which day of each month was most crowded and how many
inmates were housed on that day. As stated previously, the BIA data
showed that Tuba City had a high of 49 inmates in the facility on one day
between 2008 and 2014, with a monthly average of only 17.6 inmates. For
2014, which was the first full year of operations at the new Tuba City facility,
the maximum number of inmates was 36, while the average monthly
occupancy was only 15.6. At Kayenta, there was a high of 24 inmates
between 2008 and 2014, and a monthly average of only 9 inmates. The new
Kayenta facility remains unopened. We note that even based on the Navajo
Nation’s reported inmates, and assuming those inmates were housed in cells
with beds, the Tuba City and Kayenta facilities were built 200 and 500
percent larger than need, respectively.
Leasing Jail Space
The Navajo Nation stated that DOC might reach out to BIA to lease jail
bed spaces for BIA-operated tribal detention operations.
We note that this alternative demonstrates that the Navajo Nation has
excess bed space, which is the result of building excessively large detention
facilities. Additionally, it would turn at least part of the grant-funded facility
into an operation that generates additional revenue from the federal
government, which would require additional scrutiny and oversight.
In conclusion, we reviewed explanations and documentation from OJP and
the Navajo Nation, and determined that the correctional facilities at Tuba City
and Kayenta were built in excess of the Navajo Nation’s stated need, and the
facility sizes were expanded only because the Navajo Nation received the
DOJ grants. Therefore, our opinion remains that the excessive building sizes
were unnecessary. We also remain concerned the Navajo Nation will
continue to experience difficulties with adequately staffing and filling the
corrections facilities and with receiving sufficient funding from BIA to operate
and maintain the facilities.
This recommendation can be resolved when we receive evidence that OJP
has developed an adequate action plan to remedy $32,034,623 in
unallowable expenditures associated with the excess building sizes, or has
completed other actions that address the recommendation.

61


The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General
(DOJ OIG) is a statutorily created independent entity
whose mission is to detect and deter waste, fraud,
abuse, and misconduct in the Department of Justice, and
to promote economy and efficiency in the Department’s
operations. Information may be reported to the DOJ
OIG’s hotline at www.justice.gov/oig/hotline or
(800) 869-4499.

Office of the Inspector General
U.S. Department of Justice
www.justice.gov/oig

 

 

PLN Subscribe Now Ad
PLN Subscribe Now Ad 450x450
Prison Profiteers - Side