Ban Phòng chống ô tô Theft hoàn trả lên đến số lượng giải thưởng cấp dựa trên chi phí thực tế được báo cáo trên cơ sở hàng quý. Sau khi hoàn thành chương trình, subgrantees được yêu cầu báo cáo kết quả chương trình cho hội đồng quản trị về mục tiêu (chẳng hạn như số lượng xe thu hồi, bọn tội phạm bị truy tố, hoặc các cuộc hội thảo đào tạo tổ chức). | Automobile Theft Prevention Board reimbursed up to the grant award amount based on actual expenditures reported on a quarterly basis. After completion of the program subgrantees are required to report program results to the board in objective terms such as the number of vehicles recovered criminals prosecuted or training seminars held . The board uses this information to evaluate the level of success of the grant program. The Board of Directors philosophy is to award grant funding that will establish or enhance a comprehensive program to combat auto theft. A comprehensive program includes efforts in education and training strategies pro-active strategies and prosecution and investigation strategies. Figure 3-2 shows the financial resources awarded by category as of February 1999. Figure 3-2 Grant Awards by Strategy Prosecution Investigation Strategies 32 979 936 Source The Board s February 1999 report to the Legislature. Audit Objectives and Methodology Our audit of the grant process focused on answering the following questions Did the board have an appropriate process for awarding grant funds and ensuring compliance with applicable legal provisions and board policies Did the board accurately record grant awards and grant expenditures on the state s accounting system To answer these questions we interviewed the board chair as well as employees of the Department of Public Safety s Administration Division to gain an understanding of the controls over the grant award and disbursement processes. We reviewed supporting documentation used by the board to disburse and monitor grants. 8 Automobile Theft Prevention Board Conclusions The Automobile Theft Prevention Board accurately recorded its grant expenditures on the state s accounting system. However the board did not have a process to ensure that it did not create potential conflicts of interest for members This issue is discussed in Finding 2. In addition the board did not have adequate controls when issuing state .
