Audit recommends transparency, data and new staff for Columbus’ Crime Prevention program

Columbus city auditors presented an operational review of the Office of Crime Prevention at the Feb. 24 council meeting, recommending a redesigned public website, clearer funding tiers for grassroots and institutional programs, development of place‑based impact data and an administrative assistant in the FY27 budget.

The audit team, led in part by auditors identified in the presentation as Miss McGinnis and Benjamin Meadow, said auditors reviewed application records, IRS Form 990 filings and conducted field visits to sample grantees — including Second Chance Works, Columbus Technical College and Voices of the Valley — to observe programming. The audit report found that while programming spans several “silos” (at‑risk youth services, prison‑to‑work initiatives, domestic‑violence recovery and family assistance), the office has not compiled consistent impact statistics and faces community scrutiny over distribution decisions.

“Program funding supports several silos of community care,” the audit summary stated, noting auditors observed a 400% increase in funding and a 600% increase in applicants in recent years. The team recommended a public release report by June 30 that would address transparency concerns, revised program criteria to create two levels of annual funding (one for larger institutional programs and a lower tier for grassroots organizations) and improved data collection at the ZIP‑code and age‑category level.

Director Seth Brown told council the department had already begun implementing some recommendations and is working with the police chief and juvenile court to improve access to statistical information, while noting privacy constraints around juvenile data. “We’ve met with Chief Graham…they’re gonna work with us on that,” Brown said during the meeting.

Danny Arcedo, the board chair referenced by the auditors, said the board deliberates applications in batches to consider program impact and cost effectiveness and that the proposed tiering is intended to level the field between small volunteer‑run groups and larger institutions that can produce audited financial statements.

Council members pressed staff on allocation details and follow‑up for unfunded applicants. Auditors and board representatives said staff use impact metrics, cost‑per‑individual and historical performance to guide awards and will increase outreach so unfunded applicants receive feedback and an opportunity to improve future submissions.

The audit presentation did not include a council vote to adopt policy changes; the auditors’ package and staff responses will inform future budget and policy decisions. City staff said implementation steps are under way and that the proposed administrative assistant would be included in the FY27 budget request.