Summary
| Report Number: | 2010-012 |
|---|---|
| Report Title: | Division of Emergency Management - Delays in Settling Disaster Claims - Operational Audit |
| Report Period: | 07/2007 - 02/2009 |
| Release Date: | 09/09/2009 |
According to Division of Emergency Management (DEM) records, at February 28, 2009, DEM had 2,870 open large projects relating to disasters that occurred between 1999 and 2008 with the majority of the projects being related to 2004 and 2005 calendar‑year storms. While the overall average age of these projects was three years, some had remained open for ten years. This operational audit of DEM focused on obtaining an understanding of the causes for the delays in settling large project disaster claims for project activity during the period July 2007 through February 2009. Our audit disclosed the following:
Framework for Program Administration
Finding No. 1: DEM organizational structure and procedures were not effectively designed to ensure that disaster projects were appropriately monitored and closed in a timely manner.
Completeness and Accuracy of Data Systems
Finding No. 2: DEM maintained disaster project documentation in multiple systems and at various storage sites rather than in a centralized information system.
Finding No. 3: The Florida PA System contained inaccurate and incomplete data, limiting DEM management's ability to effectively manage disaster projects.
Monitoring of Open Projects
Finding No. 4: DEM did not provide written instructions to subgrantees on the preparation of Quarterly Reports or to staff on the review and approval of Quarterly Reports. Additionally, DEM procedures for reviewing and approving Quarterly Reports were not effective in disclosing and resolving anomalies in the data reported.
Finding No. 5: DEM did not maintain a listing of planned or completed interim inspections for disaster projects Additionally, DEM did not always properly document completed inspections.
Final Inspections and Project Closeouts
Finding No. 6: Information and calculations required by the Joint Closeout Tool documents were duplicative and resulted in inefficiencies. In addition, DEM's policy of waiting for subgrantees to request final inspections, rather than scheduling the inspections when projects were identified as completed, contributed to extensive delays.
Finding No. 7: DEM did not always retain the documentation necessary to demonstrate the adequacy of the final inspections. Also, contrary to established procedures, the eligible costs calculated during the final inspection process were not reconciled to amounts already paid to subgrantees.
Management's written response to the audit findings is included in the audit report as Exhibit C.