Review of the Office of Justice Programs’ Administration of CARES Act Funding

Summary

Review of the Office of Justice Programs' Administration of CARES Act Funding, a September 2021 report by the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General. Of approximately $1.007 billion appropriated to DOJ, $850 million went to OJP for Coronavirus Emergency Supplemental Funding (CESF) grants; OJP made its first award on April 3, 2020 and awarded 99.7 percent by August 2020. The OIG finds OJP acted quickly and most recipient spending reviewed appeared allowable, but as of March 31, 2021 recipients reported spending or obligating just $340 million, 40 percent of the total awarded. It also reports that some OJP staff said they received no CESF training and that performance reports lacked needed information. The report makes three recommendations, all of which OJP agreed with.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Review of the Office of Justice Programs’
Administration of CARES Act Funding
 2 1 - 1 3 0
SEPTEMBER 2021

E X E C U T I V E  S U M M A R Y
Review of the Office of Justice Programs’
Administration of CARES Act Funding

Objectives
The Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) reviewed the Office of Justice Programs’
(OJP) administration of Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act (CARES Act) funding.  Our
preliminary objectives were to assess OJP’s efforts
to: (1) distribute Coronavirus Emergency Supplemental
Funding (CESF) awards in a timely and efficient manner,
and (2) review pre-award activities to determine if CESF
awards were made in accordance with applicable laws,
regulations, and other guidelines.
Results in Brief
As detailed throughout our review, we found that OJP
acted quickly to distribute CESF funding and that most
recipient spending we reviewed appeared allowable
under the terms and conditions of the awards.
However, we noted that as of March 31, 2021, nearly a
year after the first award was made, CESF recipients
reported spending or obligating just 40 percent of the
total amount awarded.  As the country continues to
make progress in combatting the ongoing pandemic,
OJP must continue to carefully monitor CESF funds to
ensure they are spent in the manner intended.
We also found that some OJP staff reported that they
did not receive training on the CESF program or were
dissatisfied with the training they received.  Further,
some award managers reported that CESF
performance reports do not contain the information
necessary to effectively oversee CESF awards.
Recommendations
Our report contains three recommendations to assist
OJP with CESF training efforts and performance report
submissions.  We requested a response to our draft
report from OJP, which can be found in Appendix 2.
Our analysis of its response is included in Appendix 3.
Review Results
On March 27, 2020, U.S. Congress passed the CARES
Act, which provided over $2 trillion in funding intended
to strengthen the national response to the COVID-19
global pandemic.  Of this amount, approximately
$1.007 billion was appropriated to DOJ, with $850
million (84 percent of the total) allocated to DOJ’s OJP to
award CESF grants for the purposes of preventing,
preparing for, and responding to the Coronavirus.
On July 9, 2020, the OIG issued its first interim report on
OJP’s administration of CARES Act funding, which
covered activity through the CESF solicitation’s initial
open period.  Our second interim report was issued on
November 17, 2020, and provided updates related to
OJP’s award activity, recipient drawdowns,
expenditures, and program activities
CESF Award Distribution and Spending
OJP made its first CESF award on April 3, 2020 and awarded
99.7 percent of the $850 million received by August 2020.
However, we found that as of March 31, 2021, nearly a
year after the first award was made, recipients reported
spending or obligating just $340 million in CESF funds
(40 percent of the total amount awarded).  As the
country continues to make progress in combatting the
ongoing pandemic, and as the need for items funded
under the CESF program – such as personal protective
equipment and overtime costs for emergency
responders – may be reduced due to wide availability of
COVID-19 vaccines, OJP must continue to carefully
monitor CESF awards to ensure those funds are spent
in the manner intended, or returned to OJP as required.
To help address these concerns in July 2021, OJP
initiated a CESF outreach plan to provide additional
assistance to CESF recipients and is coordinating with
the National Criminal Justice Association to provide
additional guidance to CESF recipients.
i

E X E C U T I V E  S U M M A R Y
Review of the Office of Justice Programs’ Administration of CARES Act Funds
OIG Review of CESF Accounting Records and
Performance Reports
We also reviewed 30 general ledgers and performance
reports from CESF award recipients and found that
most grant activities and expenditures appeared
allowable under the terms and conditions of the award.
However, we identified instances of unallowable
payments to a membership-based, not-for-profit
organization.  We identified similar payments in our
previous review.  In both instances, we notified OJP of
the unallowable payments, and OJP acted quickly to
remedy the issue with the CESF community.  This issue
is discussed in more detail later in this report.
OIG Survey of OJP Grant Managers
Finally, we surveyed OJP grant managers to obtain
feedback on the CESF program.  In some cases, those
grant managers stated that the information provided
by CESF recipients in performance reports was not
sufficient to effectively oversee CESF awards.  Further,
some grant managers stated that they did not receive
training on the CESF program, and others were
dissatisfied with the training they received.  As
discussed in more detail later in this report, we
requested that OJP provide records of CESF staff
training to determine if staff charged with CESF
oversight duties had in fact received CESF training.  OJP
stated that it did not maintain records of who attended
CESF training; therefore, we were unable to verify if
training was provided to all staff charged with CESF
oversight duties at the time the training was provided.
To address these issues, we make three
recommendations to OJP to assist in future
administration of CARES Act funds.
Ongoing OIG Oversight of CESF Funds
Our review of OJP’s administration of the CESF began in
April 2020 and, as discussed throughout this report,
resulted in the issuance of two interim reports and this
report.  Throughout our review, we communicated
areas of concern to OJP, and OJP acted quickly to
respond to those concerns.  However, some issues—
such as the need to work proactively to identify and
mitigate fraud schemes targeting CARES Act funds
(detailed in our first interim report), and to ensure
continued adherence to internal policies and
procedures related to high risk grantees (detailed in our
second interim report), as well as the areas of concern
identified in this report—should remain areas of focus
for OJP throughout its CESF administration efforts.
With this report, we have completed our review of OJP’s
initial distribution of CESF funds.  The OIG will continue
monitoring OJP’s management of CESF awards and may
perform future audits to ensure the appropriate
expenditures of CESF funds.  Additionally, the OIG
continues to partner with the Pandemic Response
Accountability Committee to review and assess CARES
Act spending across the federal government.

ii

Table of Contents
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 1
CESF Program Background ......................................................................................................................................1
OIG Review Approach ...............................................................................................................................................1
OIG Survey of Bureau of Justice Assistance Staff ..................................................................................................1
DOJ’s Transition to New Grant Award and Financial Management Systems ....................................................2
CESF Drawdowns and Reported Expenditures .....................................................................................................4
OIG Review of CESF Recipient Accounting Records ..............................................................................................8
OIG Review of CESF Recipient Performance Reports ...........................................................................................9
BJA Training and Remote Oversight..................................................................................................................... 10
Conclusion and Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 12
APPENDIX 1: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology .............................................................................................. 13
Objectives ................................................................................................................................................................ 13
Scope and Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 13
APPENDIX 2: The Office of Justice Programs’ Response to the Draft Report ..................................................... 14
APPENDIX 3: Office of the Inspector General Analysis and Summary of Actions Necessary to Close the Report
 ................................................................................................................................................................................. 17
iii

1

Introduction
On March 27, 2020, U.S. Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act),
which provided over $2 trillion in funding intended to strengthen the national response to the COVID-19
global pandemic.  Of this amount, approximately $1.007 billion was appropriated to the Department of
Justice (DOJ), with $850 million (84 percent of the total) allocated to DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP) to
award Coronavirus Emergency Supplemental Funding (CESF) grants for the purposes of preventing,
preparing for, and responding to the Coronavirus.  The OIG initiated a review of OJP’s administration of
CARES Act funding on April 23, 2020.
CESF Program Background
All CARES Act funding appropriated to OJP is being administered through the CESF, which aids eligible states,
U.S. territories, the District of Columbia, units of local government, and tribes in preventing, preparing for,
and responding to the coronavirus.  Allowable uses of CESF funding include, but are not limited to, overtime,
equipment (including law enforcement and medical personal protective equipment), hiring, training,
supplies (such as gloves, masks, and sanitizer), travel expenses, and addressing the medical needs of
inmates in state, local, and tribal prisons.  Additional detail on CESF program background can be found in
our first and second interim reports.1
OIG Review Approach
The DOJ Office of the Inspector General (OIG) reviewed OJP’s administration of CARES Act funding.  Our
preliminary objectives were to assess OJP’s efforts to:  (1) distribute Coronavirus award funding in a timely
and efficient manner, and (2) review pre-award activities to determine if Coronavirus awards were made in
accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and other guidelines.
On July 9, 2020, the OIG issued its first interim report on OJP’s administration of CARES Act funding, which
covered activity through the CESF solicitation’s initial open period.  Our second interim report was issued on
November 17, 2020, and provided updates related to OJP’s award activity, recipient drawdowns,
expenditures, and program activities.  With this report, we have completed our review of OJP’s initial
distribution of CESF funds.  The OIG will continue monitoring OJP’s management of CESF awards and may
perform future audits to ensure the appropriate expenditures of CESF funds.  Additionally, the DOJ OIG
continues to partner with the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee to review and assess CARES Act
spending across the federal government.
OIG Survey of Bureau of Justice Assistance Staff
On April 21, 2021, the OIG distributed a survey to 53 OJP Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) employees
charged with oversight of CESF awards.  Our survey was designed to obtain feedback on the CESF program,
including staff views on:  (1) training provided by OJP; (2) challenges in monitoring CESF awards, including
those stemming from the remote working environment necessitated by the pandemic; and (3) recipient

1  DOJ OIG, Interim Report – Review of OJP’s Administration of CARES Act Funding, 1-2; Interim Report II – Review of OJP’s
Administration of CARES Act Funding, 1-2.

2

ability to effectively implement their CESF awards.  On average, survey respondents reported overseeing
144 OJP grant awards, including 31 CESF awards.
Our survey was open through May 7, 2021, and we received 27 responses (a 51 percent response rate).
While the survey allowed us to aggregate overall satisfaction or concern with program areas, we also
requested narrative responses to assist in identifying consensus surrounding specific challenges to award
administration.  Aggregate and narrative survey results are included in relevant sections throughout this
final report.2
DOJ’s Transition to New Grant Award and Financial Management Systems
In October 2020, DOJ transitioned from the Grants Management System (GMS) to the Justice Grants System
(JustGrants).  These systems served or serve as a repository for all award-related documentation, such as
the initial award package, Federal Financial Reports (FFRs), performance reports, award adjustments or
modifications, and closeout packages.  DOJ also transitioned from the Grants Payment Request System
(GPRS) to the Automated Standard Application for Payments (ASAP), the U.S. Department of the Treasury
system through which award recipients access DOJ funding.
DOJ’s system transition caused issues for award
recipients such as delays in accessing the system itself
and complications related to report submission.3  To
assess the impact on CESF awards, we included two
questions specific to the transition in our BJA staff
survey.  As shown in Figure 1, approximately 78
percent of respondents indicated that the transition
affected their ability to monitor CESF awards.
Twenty one of the 27 respondents provided a
narrative response to this question.  We reviewed
those responses and found that nearly all areas of
concern related to technical issues with JustGrants (16
respondents), or a lack of training on this new system
(seven respondents, four of whom also expressed
concerns related to technical issues with JustGrants).

Figure 1.  Survey Response – Grant
Management System Effect on Award
Monitoring
Has the transition to JustGrants affected
your ability to monitor CESF awards?
Source:  OIG survey of BJA staff; results include
21 “Yes” responses and 6 “No” responses.
2  The OIG’s survey instrument included three questions that are not reported here.  One question requested
demographic information about the survey respondents and are not reported here to protect the anonymity of
respondents.  Two other questions asked for general feedback not covered elsewhere in our survey, or for the
respondent to identify specific grants that the respondent believed the OIG should audit; no specific grants were
identified in response to that question.
3  DOJ, “FFR Reporting Deadline Extended and JustGrants Onboarding Update,” November 19, 2020,
https://justicegrants.usdoj.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh296/files/media/document/news-ffr-report-deadline-ext.pdf (accessed
June 28, 2021) and “JustGrants: Important Information on Financial and Progress Reporting and Closeout Requirements,”
January 27, 2021, https://justicegrants.usdoj.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh296/files/media/document/news-closeout-reqmnt-
01272021.pdf (accessed June 28, 2021).
78%
22%
•
Yes
•
No

3

We provided a draft copy of this report to OJP for review, and OJP officials stated that, since June 2020 (prior
to the transition to JustGrants), OJP has offered numerous training opportunities for DOJ staff to enhance
their knowledge of JustGrants, including facilitated virtual instructor-led trainings, ongoing office hours
sessions for on-the-spot technical assistance, and weekly status briefings.  Specifically, OJP officials stated
that, since June 2020, OJP has facilitated over 30 instructor-led sessions for approximately 1,600 DOJ staff on
all modules of JustGrants and, since January 2021, approximately 270 office hours sessions were attended
by approximately 370 DOJ personnel.  These officials also stated that, since March 2021, OJP has facilitated
25 weekly JustGrants status briefings attended by approximately 100-250 staff members per session to
provide a forum for learning about JustGrants, how to navigate known issues, and how to get additional
support.  The OIG did not audit these statements.
Finally, BJA staff reported concerns with recipient progress
reports.  Specifically, 11 respondents stated that the
transition had adversely affected recipient ability to submit
performance reports to OJP for review.
Performance reports provide information relevant to the
performance and activities of CESF awards, and grant
managers rely on these reports to review award
accomplishments.  In April 2021, OJP issued an
announcement acknowledging that while over 9,300
performance reports had been successfully submitted,
"there have been individual cases where system issues are
preventing grantees from submitting their reports and the
JustGrants team is working to fix these issues."4
We also asked BJA staff about the impact of the transition
to JustGrants and ASAP on award recipients.  The results
are shown in Figure 2.
Again, 21 out of 27 respondents provided a narrative response
to this question.  We reviewed those responses and determined
that the overwhelming challenge to award recipients fell
into the categories of system issues (17 respondents
discussed general system or technical issues that impacted
CESF award recipients).  Within those 17 responses, we
identified:  (1) nine respondents who stated that award
recipients experienced issues with onboarding or setting up
accounts in JustGrants; and (2) five respondents who
specifically stated that grantees expressed challenges in
accessing grant funds.

4  DOJ, “Review Updated DOJ Guidance on Performance Reporting and Federal Financial Reporting,” November 19, 2020,
https://justicegrants.usdoj.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh296/files/media/document/news-ffr-pr-extend-042121.pdf (accessed
June 28, 2021).
Figure 2.  Survey Response – New
Grant and Financial Management
System Effect on Award Recipients
Has the transition to JustGrants or ASAP
affected recipient ability to implement
CESF awards?
15%
63%
67%
•
Yes, the transition to ASAP has
affected recipient ability to implement
CESF awards.
•
Yes, the transition to JustGrants has
affected recipient ability to implement
CESF awards.
•
No, the transition to JustGrants and
ASAP has not affected recipient ability
to implement CESF awards.

Source:  OIG survey of BJA staff; this question
allowed respondents to select more than one
response.  In total, 18 respondents stated that
the transition to ASAP affected recipients; 17
stated that the transition to JustGrants
affected recipients; 4 stated that neither had
affected recipients.

4

In response to a draft of this report, OJP officials stated that as of September 7, 2021, 91 CESF recipients had
not completed their ASAP entity enrollment and that an OJP customer service center had received and
resolved over 8,800 ASAP-related inquiries.  Further, while OJP officials acknowledged that there were some
technical issues early in the JustGrants transition, they told us that OJP worked quickly to identify and
remedy those issues.  OJP officials stated that at least 371 CESF recipient submitted their FFRs covering
January to March 2021 by the April 30th due date (the OIG notes that the CESF program has a total of over
1,800 CESF recipients).  Further, OJP stated that as of this same date, of the 4,452 performance reports due,
983 were delinquent.  In addition, OJP officials stated that there were 2,719 instances of CESF recipients
successfully submitting performance report question set answers in JustGrants.  The OIG did not audit these
statements.
In May 2021, the OIG published an alert that summarized these and other issues, and in August 2021, the
OIG initiated an audit of the JustGrants contract and implementation of the system, in which the OIG will
address any issues specific to JustGrants; therefore, we make no recommendations specific to JustGrants at
this time.
CESF Drawdowns and Reported Expenditures
Consistent with the CESF program’s purpose to provide assistance in response to the coronavirus, OJP
determined that eligible recipients may draw down funds either in advance of an expenditure or on a
reimbursable basis.  Additionally, recipients report award expenditures using the FFR, which shows the
actual funds that have been spent (expenditures), and any bills that will be paid (unliquidated obligations) at
the recipient or subrecipient level, for each award.
OJP made its first CESF award on April 3, 2020 and awarded 99.7 percent of the $850 million received by
August 2020.  In our second interim report, we found that as of June 30, 2020, CESF recipients had drawn
down a total of $273,044,373 in award funds (32 percent of the total amount available under the CESF) and
reported spending or obligating a total of $75,702,823 (9 percent of the total available, and 28 percent of the
total drawn down).  A total of 1,215 recipients, or 67 percent of the 1,827 total CESF recipients, had reported
no expenditures as of that date.
As part of our current work, we analyzed total drawdowns and total expenditures through March 31, 2021,
the most recent period for which aggregate financial reporting was available at the time of our analysis.  As
shown in Figure 3, recipients had drawn down a total of $474,792,268 in award funds (56 percent of the total
amount available under the CESF) and reported spending or obligating a total of $339,752,108 (40 percent
of the total available and 72 percent of the total drawn down).5  This represents a significant increase over
the 28 percent of funds spent in relation to funds drawn down as of June 30, 2020.

5  DOJ suspended drawdowns in GPRS on September 22, 2020.  On October 1, 2020, OJP transferred all prior drawdowns
from GPRS to JEDI, the system through which OJP and the OIG access drawdown records, as one cumulative amount.
We use this cumulative transfer amount for our analysis in Figure 3.  Drawdowns resumed through ASAP beginning on
October 15th but, as noted elsewhere in this report, often experienced delays.

5

Although advance drawdowns are allowable under
the terms and conditions of the CESF, we believe
significant lapses of time between draw down and
expenditure may indicate difficulties in
implementing award goals and objectives, or
ongoing issues with locating supplies or equipment
that constitute allowable purchases under the
CESF.  Given the ongoing disparities between
drawdowns and reported expenditures, we asked
OJP officials if procedures were in place to monitor
advance drawdown activity.  OJP reported that in
March 2021 BJA broadened its financial guidance to
ensure CESF grant managers monitor CESF awards
for compliance with award special conditions
related to advance drawdowns.6
In light of this guidance, because advance
drawdowns are allowable, and because the
disparity between funds spent and funds drawn
down had decreased significantly as of March 31,
2021, the OIG makes no recommendations to OJP
regarding the disparity between drawdowns and
expenditures.  However, we consider the 60
percent of CESF funds that was not obligated or
spent as of March 31, 2021, to be an issue that will
require OJP’s careful monitoring.  This monitoring
will be particularly important in light of the evolving pandemic response because, as the country continues
to make progress in combatting the pandemic, vaccines become more widely available, and if local
jurisdiction mask mandates are lifted, the need for award recipients to purchase items that are authorized
under the CESF—such as personal protective equipment and overtime costs for emergency responders—
may decrease.
On July 6, 2021, BJA initiated an outreach plan to provide additional assistance to CESF recipients.  First, BJA
contacted state and local CESF recipients and summarized projects and purchases that are allowable under
the CESF solicitation.  BJA also identified new areas in which CESF funds may be spent, such as:
(1) enhancing resources to assist in developing or improving case management systems to eliminate the
backlog of court cases that built during the pandemic, (2) developing tools to support diversion and
alternatives to incarceration as part of the review of backlogged cases due to the coronavirus, and (3)

6  Specifically, if award funds are being drawn down in advance, the recipient (or a subrecipient, with respect to a
subaward) is required to establish an interest-bearing account and must generally maintain advance payments of
federal awards in that account.  The award funds, including any interest, may not be used to pay debts or expenses
incurred by other activities beyond the scope of the CESF program.  The recipient also agrees to obligate the award
funds in the account (including any interest earned) during the period of performance for the award and expend within
120 days thereafter.  Any unobligated or unexpended funds, including interest earned, must be returned to OJP at the
time of closeout.
Figure 3. CESF Spending Through
March 2021
 $-
 $300
 $600
 $900
Total Awarded
30-Jun-20
30-Sep-20
31-Dec-20
31-Mar-21
Dollars in Millions
Total Amount Awarded
Total Amount Drawn
Total Amount Spent or Obligated
Source: OJP and the Justice Department
Enterprise Data Integration and BI Portal

6

supporting enhanced jail operations and mitigation efforts within jails as a result of the coronavirus
pandemic.
BJA is also coordinating with the National Criminal Justice Association (NCJA) to provide additional guidance
to CESF recipients.  Specifically, between July 20, 2021 and August 24, 2021, the NCJA is conducting individual
outreach calls to state administering agencies with an unobligated balance of 60 percent or greater, and will
coordinate with those states to discuss ways state and local recipients can utilize funding for the reopening
of the criminal justice system.  Further, the NCJA has created and distributed additional criminal justice
resources intended to assist CESF recipients throughout the remaining award period.  BJA stated that, in
October 2021, it intends to reassess balances that remain
on CESF awards and conduct additional outreach to CESF
recipients, as necessary.
Our analysis of expenditure data also identified 879 award
recipients who received a total of $542,579,965 and had
over 50 percent of award funds remaining; within that total,
we identified 495 recipients with over 99 percent of their
funds remaining.  To determine the reasons for these
apparent delays in spending, we selected a sample of 30
award recipients with over 99 percent funds remaining and
requested that they provide a brief narrative explaining:
(1) why CESF funds were not utilized as of March 2021, (2) if
those recipients intended to use CESF funds within the next
6 months, and (3) to report any issues with delayed financial
reporting.  In response, 23 of the 30 recipients we contacted
stated that they had spent CESF funds as of June 2021.
Regarding delays in using award funds, 11 respondents
stated they had issues with JustGrants, 5 stated they had
issues with acquiring access to ASAP, and 5 stated they had
challenges sourcing items.  In some cases, recipients with
issues related to JustGrants reported being unable to
access the system for months and, as of June 2021, two
recipients reported that they still did not have access.
Additionally, six recipients stated that other CARES Act
funding was prioritized over CESF funds, or that CESF
spending was delayed to avoid the appearance of
supplanting.7

7  Federal funds must be used to supplement existing state and local funds for program activities and must not supplant
(replace) those funds that have been appropriated for the same purpose.  As noted in our second interim report, the
CARES Act provided funding to other federal agencies that, in some cases, duplicated activities deemed allowable under
the CESF.  Further, CESF recipients may have received funds from state and local organizations also intended to combat
the pandemic.
Figure 4.  Survey Response – Recipient
Implementation of CESF Awards
Did the CESF recipients assigned to you
encounter other challenges in implementing
their awards?
•
Recipients have not reported challenges
in implementing their CESF awards.
•
Recipients
have
only
reported
challenges that are typical for all
awards.
•
Recipients have reported challenges
with CESF awards that are not typical for
other awards.
•
Other
19%
48%
15%
19%
Source:  OIG survey of BJA staff ; results
include 5 “Recipients have not reported
challenges,” 13 “Recipients have only
reported challenges typical for all awards,”
4 “Recipients have reported challenges with
CESF awards that are not typical for other
awards, “and 5 “Other.”

7

These responses from CESF award recipients were often consistent with BJA staff responses to our survey,
as shown in Figure 4.  Specifically, only 15 percent of BJA award managers stated that CESF recipients
reported challenges that were not typical for any award.8  Twelve of the 27 respondents to this question
provided a narrative response.  In those responses, BJA staff discussed challenges related to:  (1) managing
different sources of CARES Act funds, including
managing these funds to avoid potential issues with
supplanting (one respondent); (2) difficulty in locating
and ordering supplies that have been in high demand,
such as personal protective equipment or hand sanitizer
(four respondents); and (3) challenges related to DOJ’s
transition to JustGrants (four respondents).  These
responses were also consistent with challenges reported
to us in our August/September 2020 survey of CESF
award recipients; those survey results can be found in
our second interim report.9
We also asked BJA staff if improvements could be made
to the CESF program that would assist BJA staff in their
monitoring duties, or otherwise assist CESF award
recipients, as shown in Figure 5.
Eleven of the 27 respondents provided a narrative response to this question.  In those responses, some BJA
staff discussed the need for in-person monitoring (two respondents).  Others requested more guidance for
award recipients, including additional detail on
allowable uses of CESF funds (three respondents).
Concerns regarding the need for clarified or enhanced
guidance on allowable costs were echoed in
responses to a separate question about CESF program
improvements that would assist award recipients, as
shown in Figure 6.  Nine of the 27 respondents
provided a narrative response to this question.  Some
of those responses continued to discuss issues with
JustGrants (two respondents) or voiced general
concerns regarding BJA grant manager workload (two
respondents).  However, other individual respondents
mentioned the need for clear guidance on allowable
costs, including detailed uniform guidelines on
requirements for reporting, additional guidance on
the award acceptance process, and clear guidance –
including clear restrictions – on how CESF funds can be used.  Additionally, other respondents discussed the

8  All grant awards have challenges, which may include hiring staff necessary to implement the award, ensuring
compliance with award special conditions, and meeting all goals and objectives of the award.
9  DOJ OIG, Interim Report II – Review of OJP’s Administration of CARES Act Funding, 3-4.
Figure 6.  Survey Response – CESF
Program Improvements to Assist
Award Recipients
Could improvements be made to the
CESF program that would assist in your
monitoring duties?
•
Yes
•
No
26%
74%
Source:  OIG survey of BJA staff; results
include 7 “Yes” responses and 20 “No”
responses.
Figure 5.  Survey Response – CESF
Program Improvements to Assist
BJA Oversight
Could improvements be made to the
CESF program that would assist in your
monitoring duties?
•
Yes
•
No
33%
67%
Source:  OIG survey of BJA staff; results include
9 “Yes” responses and 18 “No” responses.

8

need for enhanced guidance to assist CESF recipients in
understanding what is required of them when
submitting performance reports, including a more
robust report that specifically solicits information on
activities undertaken to prepare for or respond to the
coronavirus.  We discuss award manager concerns with
current performance reports in more detail later in this
report.
Finally, we asked BJA staff if they encountered other
challenges in monitoring CESF awards.  As shown in
Figure 7, only 11 percent of staff reported that they had
encountered challenges that were not typical of other
awards.  Eleven of the 27 respondents provided a
narrative response to this question.  In addition to
ongoing discussion of the transition to JustGrants
(mentioned by four respondents), some award
managers mentioned challenges related to monitoring
new recipients who are unfamiliar with federal awards
(three respondents), and recipient confusion regarding
reporting requirements (one respondent).10
OIG Review of CESF Recipient Accounting
Records
To assess recipient spending, we requested accounting
records from a judgmental sample of 30 CESF recipients
who had drawn down CESF funds at the time of our analysis.  In total, these 30 recipients requested
$100,614,705 in CESF drawdowns as of May 3, 2021, and the award accounting records supported expenses
totaling $25,872,166 (26 percent of the total drawn down).
We reviewed these accounting records to determine if reported expenditures appeared to be allowable
under the terms of the CESF program.  While we found that most expenditures appeared reasonable and
allowable under the program, we identified a continued area of concern.  Specifically, during our previous
review of CESF accounting records, detailed in our second interim report, we identified a payment made for
a “special assessment of dues” at the request of a membership-based, not-for-profit organization that
represents justice system concerns to the federal government and provides assistance to member
organizations.  We contacted OJP regarding allowability of the payment at that time, and OJP determined the
payment to be unallowable.  In response, OJP created and distributed guidance notifying the CESF
community that the cost was unallowable.
In our current review, we identified two additional payments, from two additional state administering
agencies, in the amount of $1,842 each to the same organization.  Both state administering agencies in our

10  Respondents who selected “Other” and provided a narrative response generally discussed the ongoing issues with
JustGrants or staff workload.
Figure 7.  Survey Response – Other
Challenges in Monitoring CESF Awards
Have you encountered other challenges in
monitoring the CESF awards assigned to
you?
•
I have not encountered any challenges
•
I have only encountered challenges that
are typical of all awards
•
I have encountered challenges with CESF
awards that are not typical for my other
awards
•
Other (please describe)
37%
33%
11%
19%
Source:  OIG Survey of BJA Staff; results
include 10 “I have not encountered any
challenges,” 9 “I have only encountered
challenges that are typical of all awards,”
3 “I have encountered challenges with CESF
awards that are not typical for my other
awards,“ and 5 “Other.”

9

current sample received the additional guidance and took corrective actions but had not corrected their
accounting records as of April 2021.  We again contacted OJP regarding these expenses and OJP provided
evidence that, within 4 days of our communication, it had created and distributed additional guidance
notifying the state administering agency partners that the cost was unallowable.
We also compared the recipient accounting records to COVID-related complaints submitted to the OIG’s
fraud hotline and did not identify any purchases related to entities listed in the complaints.
OIG Review of CESF Recipient Performance Reports
We reviewed performance reports for each of the 30 CESF recipients in our sample to determine if reported
award activities appeared to be consistent with the goals of the CESF program.  In general, state recipients
hired administrative staff and contacted stakeholders regarding subawards, and local recipients purchased
items that were approved in award documents.  We found no indication that reported award activities were
inconsistent with the CESF program.11
Further, we asked BJA staff if the information requested
from recipients in CESF performance reports provided
information necessary to oversee CESF awards.  As shown
in Figure 8, 59 percent of those surveyed responded in the
affirmative.12
Thirteen of the 27 respondents provided a narrative
response to this question.  Those narrative responses
often discussed challenges related to recipient inability to
submit performance reports in JustGrants (six
respondents); two of those respondents also expressed
concerns regarding their inability to request changes from
award recipients through that system.  However, others
had more specific concerns, and stated that some
recipients seemed confused by the wording of questions in
performance reports, or left questions blank (five
respondents, three of whom also discussed separate
concerns related specifically to JustGrants).
In response to a draft of our report, OJP officials stated that BJA believes the reported concerns relate to
JustGrants, and not grantee understanding of what to report for performance.  Further, OJP officials stated
that a preliminary analysis of progress report questions related to reporting overtime hours and jobs found
“almost no evidence of unclarity within grantee responses.”  OJP officials also stated that participants at a
December 2020 training event had very few questions regarding the clarity of the reporting questions;

11  As of May 13, 2021, 2 of the 30 award recipients had not submitted a progress report for period ending June 30, 2020,
and 9 of the 30 recipients had not submitted a progress report for period ending December 31, 2020.  As previously noted,
OJP award recipients experienced issues preventing them from submitting reports through JustGrants throughout the
time our field work was conducted.

Figure 8.  Survey Response –
Information in CESF Performance
Reports
Do current performance reporting
requirements provide the information
you need to effectively oversee CESF
awards?
•
Yes
•
No
•
N/A
59%
30%
11%
Source:  OIG survey of BJA staf f; results
include 16 “Yes” responses, 8 “No” responses,
and 3 “Not Applicable.”

10

rather, most questions were related to JustGrants.  The OIG did not audit these statements.  However, our
results indicate that OJP may benefit from conducting a review of CESF performance reports to ensure
recipients are providing accurate information to OJP.  Therefore, we recommend that OJP assess the extent
to which dissatisfaction with current performance reporting is limited to the transition to JustGrants, and, if
necessary, provide clarification to the CESF community as to the type of information BJA expects to receive
on its semi-annual progress reports in the future.
BJA Training and Remote Oversight
As part of our staff survey, we asked several
questions regarding BJA staff ability to effectively
oversee CESF awards.  We first asked if the CESF
training provided to BJA staff was adequate.  As
shown in Figure 9, approximately 74 percent of survey
respondents stated that they agreed, or strongly
agreed, that the training adequately prepared them to
successfully monitor CESF awards.
However, we also noted that 11 percent of
respondents (three individuals) disagreed or strongly
disagreed that the training provided was adequate,
and an additional 11 percent (again, three individuals)
reported that they did not receive CESF training.13
OJP did provide training to BJA staff in April 2020.  This
training included guidance related to the review and
approval of CESF applications, unallowable costs, and
other issues related to award administration.
However, given that approximately 22 percent of
survey respondents either stated they did not receive
training or expressed dissatisfaction with the training
provided, we communicated our concerns to OJP.
Specifically, we asked if OJP maintained a record of
who had attended the training, if the training was
recorded for later viewing, and if OJP had provided
any follow-up training on the CESF program to BJA
staff.
OJP stated that it did not maintain a record of who attended the CESF training, but that it was mandatory for
all staff unless on approved leave or official travel.  Because our survey was anonymous, and because OJP
did not maintain records of who attended CESF training, we are unable to determine if respondents who
selected “I did not receive CESF training” were charged with CESF oversight duties after the April 2020

13  Further, one respondent selected “Other,” but in a narrative response reported that OJP’s Office of Audit, Assessment,
and Management had not provided training to BJA staff.  As BJA itself did provide CESF training, we did not take further
issue.
Figure 9.  Survey Response – CESF
Training for BJA Staff
I received adequate training on the CESF
program to be able to successfully
monitor CESF awards.
•
Strongly Agree
•
Agree
•
Disagree
•
Strongly Disagree
•
I did not receive CESF training
•
Other
26%
48%
7%
4%
11%
4%
Source:  OIG survey of BJA staff; results
include 7 “Strongly Agree,” 13 “Agree,”
2 “Disagree,” 1 “Strongly Disagree,” 3 “I did
not receive CESF training,” and 1 “Other.”

11

training (though, as noted on the previous page, OJP provided an additional training in December 2020; our
survey was conducted in April to May 2021).  Further, while the live training was not recorded, the training
materials were provided to all BJA staff via email.  OJP also provided staff with copies of an overview of the
CESF program which outlined general award requirements and approved special conditions for all CESF
awards.14  Finally, OJP maintains a Frequently Asked Questions document on its website, which discusses
allowable and unallowable costs as well as other areas related to the CESF program.15
We acknowledge the training efforts undertaken by OJP; however, given that 22 percent of survey
respondents (six BJA staff) stated that they did not receive training, or were dissatisfied with the training
they did receive, we believe OJP would benefit from assessing the need for follow-up training on the CESF
program for BJA staff.  Therefore, we recommend that OJP ensure it maintains records of staff who attend,
and do not attend, program-specific training, and consider whether follow-up training opportunities for the
CESF award managers is warranted.
Finally, we asked BJA staff if the remote monitoring
environment necessitated by COVID-19 presented
challenges to effective award monitoring.  As shown in
Figure 10, approximately 74 percent of staff reported
that it had not.
Those who discussed challenges in their narrative
responses mentioned the need for in-person site visits,
but some also acknowledged that such monitoring was
restricted or would have been unreasonable during the
pandemic.  We asked OJP when it expects in-person
monitoring to resume.  OJP officials reported that it
continues to follow DOJ guidance to generally limit on-
site work to situations in which it is necessary, such as
law enforcement functions essential to public health
and safety, accessing classified material, or performing
critical on-site support functions.  For these reasons,
OJP However, OJP officials also noted that OJP has established practices for in-depth remote monitoring and
has conducted a portion of its in-depth monitoring activities remotely since FY 2011.

14  Special conditions are terms and conditions that are included with the award and may include additional
requirements covering areas such as performance and financial reporting, prohibited uses of Federal funds, consultant
rates, changes in key personnel, and proper disposition of program income.
15  OJP, “BJA Fiscal Year 2020 Coronavirus Emergency Supplemental Funding Program Frequently Asked Questions,”
July 1, 2020, https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh186/files/media/document/cesf-faqs.pdf, (accessed June 23, 2021).
Figure 10.  Survey Response – Challenges
Presented by the Remote Monitoring
Environment
Has the remote monitoring environment
necessitated by COVID-19 presented challenges
to monitoring awards effectively?
•
Yes
•
No
Source:  OIG survey of BJA staff; results include 7
“Yes” responses and 20 “No” responses.

12

Conclusion and Recommendations
Our review of 30 CESF award recipients found that most expenditures and reported award activities were
generally allowable under the terms and conditions of the award.  When we did identify unallowable
expenditures, OJP acted quickly to remedy the associated costs.  However, some BJA grant managers stated
that the information provided by CESF recipients in performance reports was not sufficient to effectively
oversee CESF awards.  Further, some BJA grant managers stated that they did not receive training on the
CESF program, and others were dissatisfied with the training they received.  To this end, we make three
recommendations to OJP to assist in future administration of CARES Act funds.
We recommend that OJP:
1. Assess the extent to which dissatisfaction with current performance reporting is limited to the
transition to JustGrants, and, if necessary, provide clarification to the CESF community as to the type
of information BJA expects to receive on its semi-annual progress reports in the future.
2. Ensure it maintains records of staff who attend, and do not attend, program-specific training.
3. Consider whether follow-up training opportunities for the CESF award managers is warranted.

13

APPENDIX 1: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Objectives
Our review objectives were to assess OJP’s efforts to: (1) distribute Coronavirus Emergency Supplemental
Funding (CESF) awards in a timely and efficient manner, and (2) review pre-award activities to determine if
CESF awards were made in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and other guidelines.
Scope and Methodology
The scope of this review generally covers March 2020, when the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security Act (CARES Act) was passed, through July 2021, when our field work was substantially complete.  On
July 9, 2020, the OIG issued its first interim report on OJP’s administration of CARES Act funding, which
covered activity through the CESF solicitation’s initial open period.  Our second interim report was issued on
November 17, 2020, and provided updates related to OJP’s award activity, recipient drawdowns,
expenditures, and program activities.  With this report, we have completed our review of OJP’s initial
distribution of CESF funds.
To accomplish our objectives for this report and our two interim reports, we reviewed: (1) OJP’s actions
during the CESF solicitation’s open period; (2) OJP’s CESF training efforts; (3) OJP’s CESF allocation
methodology; (4) CESF applications that were approved or denied by OJP; (5) OJP’s overall distribution of
CESF funds, generally from April through August 2020; (6) recipient spending by Federal Financial Report
period; (7) OJP’s readiness to address and prevent COVID-19 fraud schemes; (8) potential overlap between
the CESF and other CARES Act-funded programs; (9) OJP’s compliance with internal policies and procedures
governing high-risk recipients, and; (10) CESF award recipient accounting records and programmatic reports.
We also conducted interviews with staff from OJP’s Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management; Bureau of
Justice Assistance (BJA); and Office of the Chief Financial Officer.  Finally, we administered two surveys: one
to assess the viewpoints and obtain feedback from CESF award recipients, and one to assess the viewpoints
and obtain feedback from OJP’s BJA staff.
The OIG will continue monitoring OJP’s management of CESF awards and may perform future audits to
ensure the appropriate expenditures of CESF funds.  Additionally, the DOJ OIG continues to partner with the
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee to review and assess CARES Act spending across the federal
government.

14

APPENDIX 2: The Office of Justice Programs’ Response to the
Draft Report

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Office of the Assistant Attorney General
Washington, D.C. 2053 1
September 24, 2021
MEMORANDUM TO:
Michael E. Horowitz
Inspector General
United States Department of Justice
THROUGH:
Jason R. Malmstrom
Assistant Inspector General for Audit
Office of the Inspector General
United States Department of Justice
FROM:
Amy L. Solomon
Acting Assistant Attorney General
Amy L.
Solomon
Digitally signed by Amy L.
Solomon
Date: 2021.09.24 17:06:35 04'00'
SUBJECT:
Response to the Office of the Inspector General's Draft Audit
Report, Review of the Office of Justice Programs' Administration
of CARES Act Funding
This memorandum provides a response to the Office of the Inspector General's (OIG)
September 20, 2021, draft audit report entitled, Review of the Office of Justice Programs'
Administration of CARES Act Funding. The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) appreciates the
opportunity to review and comment on the draft report.
OJP, through the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), was appropriated $850 million in
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) funding. With the CARES Act
funding, BJA worked diligently to expedite awards to 1,828 recipients through the Coronavirus
Emergency Supplemental Funding (CESF) program. OJP awarded the first CESF award on April
3, 2020, and awarded 99.7 percent of the $850 million received by August 2020. As of August 20,
2021, CESF award recipients have drawn down $584,645,959 in CESF awards.
BJA has taken several steps to ensure adequate oversight ofCESF awards, including closely
monitoring unobligated balances and facilitating training on CESF program guidelines for CESF
award recipients and BJA staff that manage CESF awards. In July 2021, BJA launched an
extensive outreach effort to CESF award recipients to provide additional technical assistance for
recipients with unobligated balances in excess of 60% of their award amounts, on allowable
activities that could be paid with CESF funds. BJA will continue to closely monitor unobligated
balances until all funds are expended for allowable purposes under the CESF program.

15

The draft audit report contains three recommendations. For ease of review, the recommendations
directed to OJP are restated in bold and are followed by our response.
1.
Assess the extent to which dissatisfaction with current performance reporting
is limited to the transition to JustGrants, and, if necessary, provide
clarification to the CESF community as to the type of infonnation BJA
expects to receive on its semi-annual progress reports in the future.
The Office of Justice Programs agrees with this recommendation. OJP will follow
up with CESF award recipients to reinforce performance reporting guidance, and
determine if additional clarification or training is needed on performance reporting
in JustGrants.
The Office of Justice Programs considers this recommendation resolved and requests
written acceptance of this action from your office.
2.
Ensure it maintains records of staff who attend, and do not attend, program-specific
training.
The Office of Justice Programs agrees with this recommendation. OJP will strengthen its
procedures to ensure that records are maintained to support the completion of mandatory
training by its staff.
The Office of Justice Programs considers this recommendation resolved and requests
written acceptance of this action from your office.
3.
Consider whether follow-up training opportunities for the CESF award managers is
warranted.
The Office of Justice Programs agrees with this recommendation. As discussed during the
audit, BJ A facilitated program-specific training for BJA staff who manage CESF awards.
OJP will follow-up with BJA staff who manage CESF awards to determine whether any
follow-up training is warranted.
The Office of Justice Programs considers this recommendation resolved and requests
written acceptance of this action from your office.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this draft report, and for your continued
collaboration to improve the administration of our grant programs. If you have any questions
regarding this response, please contact Ralph E. Martin, Director, Office of Audit, Assessment,
and Management, at (202) 305-1802.
cc:
Maureen A. Henneberg
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Ralph E. Martin
Director
2

16

Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management
Kristen Mahoney
Acting Director
Bureau of Justice Assistance
Rachel Johnson
Acting Chief Financial Officer
Rafael A. Madan
General Counsel
Phillip K. Merkle
Acting Director
Office of Communications
Louise Duhamel
Acting Assistant Director, Audit Liaison Group
Internal Review and Evaluation Office
Justice Management Division
David Sheeren
Regional Audit Manager
Denver Regional Audit Office
Office of the Inspector General
Jorge L. Sosa
Director, Office of Operations -Audit Division
Office of the Inspector General
OJP Executive Secretariat
Control Title IT20210920115113
3

17

APPENDIX 3: Office of the Inspector General Analysis and
Summary of Actions Necessary to Close the Report
The OIG provided a draft of this report to OJP.  OJP’s response is incorporated as Appendix 2 of this final
report.  In response to our draft report, OJP agreed with our recommendations and discussed the actions it
will implement in response to our findings.  As a result, the report is resolved.  The following provides the
OIG analysis of the response and summary of actions necessary to close the report.
Recommendations for OJP:
1. Assess the extent to which dissatisfaction with current performance reporting is limited to the
transition to JustGrants, and, if necessary, provide clarification to the CESF community as to the type
of information BJA expects to receive on its semi-annual progress reports in the future.
Resolved.  OJP agreed with our recommendation.  In its response, OJP stated that it will follow up
with CESF award recipients to reinforce performance reporting guidance and determine if additional
clarification or training is needed on performance reporting in JustGrants.
This recommendation can be closed when we receive evidence that OJP has assessed the impact
JustGrants has on current performance reporting, and if necessary, provides clarification to the CESF
community as to the type of information BJA expects to receive on future semi-annual progress
reports.
2. Ensure it maintains records of staff who attend, and do not attend, program-specific training.
Resolved.  OJP agreed with our recommendation.  In its response, OJP stated that it will strengthen
its procedures to ensure that records are maintained to support the completion of mandatory
training by staff.
This recommendation can be closed when we receive evidence that OJP has implemented
procedures to ensure it maintains records of staff who attend, and do not attend, program-specific
training.
3. Consider whether follow-up training opportunities for the CESF award managers is warranted.
Resolved.  OJP agreed with our recommendation.  In its response, OJP stated that it will follow up
with BJA staff who manage CESF awards to determine whether additional training is warranted.
This recommendation can be closed when we receive evidence that OJP has coordinated with its
CESF award managers and determined if additional CESF training is warranted.

File and source

File

2021-09-30-ojp-cares-act-funding-final-review-21-130.pdf

Size

1,775,272 bytes

SHA-256

95a9baa33d92e163b8d7097381c5803eda14b3a31c82ae84388a7b43203bd8fd

Our copy

2021-09-30-ojp-cares-act-funding-final-review-21-130.pdf

Original

oig.justice.gov