Transcript OJJDP Audits of State Compliance Monitoring Systems

Audits of State Compliance
Monitoring Systems
Presented by
Thomas Murphy, State Representative, OJJDP
1
Session Overview




Why must OJJDP conduct audits?
What is a compliance audit?
The audit process: planning, execution, and
follow-up.
Common audit findings.
2
Pursuant to Section 204(b)(6) of the
JJDP Act of 2002, OJJDP shall:
“Provide for the auditing of monitoring systems required
under… this title to review the adequacy of such systems….”
3
Pursuant to Section 223(a)(14) of the
JJDP Act of 2002, States shall:
“Provide for an adequate system of monitoring jails,
detention facilities, correctional facilities, and nonsecure
facilities to ensure that the requirements of paragraph (11),
paragraph (12), and paragraph (13) are met, and for annual
reporting of the results of such monitoring to the [OJJDP]
Administrator….”
4
What Is a Compliance Audit?



An in-depth, on-site review and evaluation of a
State’s system for compliance monitoring.
Audits occur a minimum of once every five years.
OJJDP determines whether a State’s system is
“adequate”.
5
What Is a Compliance Audit?
(cont’d)


Findings and recommendations are provided.
Formula Grants funds can be frozen if a State’s
compliance monitoring system is determined to
be inadequate. Future eligibility as a
“Participating” State is also jeopardized.
6
Pre-Audit Planning



OJJDP provides State written notification 60 days
before the audit requesting written materials.
The JJ Specialist, Compliance Monitor and State
Rep. identify facilities to visit.
Facilities should represent a mix of urban, rural,
and suburban communities and include
geographic areas beyond the capital region.
7
Pre-Audit Planning (cont’d)
Types of facilities to be visited:
 Lockup
 Jail
 Juvenile Detention Center
 Juvenile Correctional Facility
8
Pre-Audit Planning (cont’d)
Types of Facilities to be visited:
 Court holding facility
 Group home
 Prison
9
Pre-Audit Planning (cont’d)


State Compliance Monitor contacts facilities to
arrange a visit, emphasizing that it is the State—
not the facilities themselves—that is being
audited.
State develops a tentative agenda.
10
Pre-Audit Planning (cont’d)


The State ensures that each facility will have
original admissions data available onsite.
The State agency has all required data available
for review and ready to carry into the field.
11
Audit Execution
1) Entrance interview.
2) Discussion of the State system. Clarification of any
issues that arose in OJJDPs review of audit materials.
3) Facility visits include verification of compliance monitoring
data and tour to ensure classification is accurate and that
Separation is adequate.
4) Exit conference.
12
Audit Follow-Up

OJJDP provides the audited State an official
findings letter and audit report.



Findings can be positive or negative.
Findings  must be addressed or the State risks
having its Formula Grants funds frozen.
Recommendations  OJJDP strongly recommends
that the State take action, such that the issue does
not rise to the level of a “finding”.
13
Audit Follow-Up (cont’d)


State prepares official response, delineating how
it will address audit findings an recommendations.
OJJDP provides a “response to the response,”
designating audit as officially closed or indicating
the need for further action.
14
Common Audit Findings




State Compliance Monitors are knowledgeable and
conscientious about implementing the core requirements.
The State is not performing onsite data verification prior
to submission of Compliance Monitoring report to OJJDP.
The State has classified a facility, (e.g. a Lockup) as
nonsecure yet during the OJJDP Audit the onsite
inspection reveals a cell, cuffing bench or cuffing rail.
The State is not inspecting facilities believed to be
nonsecure (e.g., lockups, group homes) to verify
nonsecure status.
15
Common Audit Findings (cont’d)



The State is not inspecting secure facilities annually.
The State is not inspecting juvenile correctional
facilities/training schools to ensure compliance with DSO
and Separation requirements.
Facilities are self-reporting violations and the State is not
adequately verifying self-reports for accuracy (e.g.
comparing self-reported violations against admissions
logs).
16
Common Audit Findings (cont’d)


The State does not provide adequate documentation that
VCO requirements have been met.
The State is not including law enforcement facilities that
exist in airports, shopping malls, and sports stadiums in
its monitoring universe.
17
Audits of State Compliance
Monitoring Systems
1. Questions?
2. Thank you!
18