**Exhibit M. Status of Congressionally Requested Studies, Reports, and
Evaluations**

> [Appropriations-Related Reports]{.underline}

1\. [BJA]{.underline} - The Committee recommendation provides
\$110,000,000 for discretionary grants to help improve the functioning
of the criminal justice system with an emphasis on drugs, violent crime,
and serious offenders. Within the amounts appropriated for discretionary
grants, the Committee expects OJP to examine 218 proposals, to provide
grants if warranted, and submit a report to the Committees on
Appropriations regarding its intentions for each proposal. (House Report
109-118; adopted by the Conference Committee House Report 109-272)

> ***Status of Report:** This report was submitted to Congress in August
> 2007.*

2\. [OJJDP]{.underline} - Within the overall amounts recommended for
Part E, OJP is expected to review 234 proposals, provide grants if
warranted, and to submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations on
its intentions for each proposal. (House Report 109-118; Conference
Committee House Report 109-272)

> ***Status of Report:** This report was submitted to Congress in August
> 2007.*

3\. [COPS]{.underline} - The Conference agreement includes \$28,775,000
for the Crime Identification Technology Act program. Within the amounts
provided, the conferees expect OJP to examine each of the following
proposals \[(total of 25)\], to provide grants if warranted, and to
submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations on its intentions
for each proposal. (House Report 109-118; Conference Committee House
Report 109-272)

> ***Status of Report:** This report was submitted to Congress in
> October 2007.*

4\. [OJJDP]{.underline} - The Committee is concerned about the
perpetration of crimes against children via the Internet and is troubled
by the failure of many Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to report at
all, and the failure of some ISPs to report in a meaningful and useful
way, about the apparent child pornography violations appearing on their
servers, as required by 42 U.S.C. 13032. According to NCMEC, which is
statutorily mandated to receive such reports and forward them to law
enforcement, the reports often lack the content and clarity sufficient
to form viable leads for law enforcement, or providers delete the
underlying evidence from their servers before law enforcement has an
opportunity to pursue an investigation. The Committee encourages the
Department to consider whether clearer guidance to providers is required
to remedy this problem. Accordingly, the Committee requests that the
Department examine these issues and provide a report to the Committee
detailing its analysis and conclusions within 90 days of enactment of
this Act. (House Report 109-118; adopted by the Conference Committee
House Report 109-272)

> ***Status of Report:** This report was submitted to Congress in
> November 2007.*

**VII. Appendix**

**Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Assessment Summaries**

**FY 2007**

None of OJP's programs underwent PART assessments in FY 2007.

**FY 2006**

**[Juvenile Justice Programs]{.underline}**

Juvenile Justice Programs underwent a PART review in FY 2006 and
received an overall rating of \"Adequate." Three follow-up action items
to improve program performance and OJP's progress to date on these
action items are outlined in the paragraphs below.

[Action Item: Make Juvenile Justice Programs\' performance results
available to the public through program publications and the
internet.]{.underline} Included the recent PART document and performance
measures with a link to Expectmore.gov on the agency\'s website.
Articles about the agency\'s performance measures and activities were
summarized in the March/April OJJDP \"News At a Glance\" Newsletter
([http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/news_at_glance/217676/
sf_1.html](http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/news_at_glance/217676/ sf_1.html))
and OJJDP\'s electronic JuvJust email report. Latest performance
information is included in the 2006 OJJDP Annual Report to Congress.
OJJDP presented information about the PART process and findings at
several conferences, grantee trainings and cluster meetings.

[Action Item: Include performance information in budget submissions to
better link resources requested to program performance
goals]{.underline}. The OJP FY 2009 budget includes annual and long-term
performance measures, and includes a discussion on strategies and
planned outcomes to better link budget with performance. OJP will
continue to work to establish better budget and performance linkages for
future performance budgets.

[Action Item: Develop a comprehensive evaluation plan for the Juvenile
Justice Programs to obtain better information on the programs\'
impacts]{.underline}. In addition to several new and ongoing
evaluations, OJP has begun a process to develop an agency-wide research
agenda on juvenile delinquency prevention, intervention, and treatment.
By March 2008, an evaluation plan will be developed to identify key
programs that should be evaluated, as well as areas in which research
gaps continue to exist.

**[Crime Victims Program]{.underline}**

Crime Victims Programs received an overall rating of \"Adequate" during
the FY 2006 assessment. Three follow-up action items to improve program
performance and OJP's progress to date on these action items are
outlined in the paragraphs below.

[Action Item: Include performance information in budget
submissions.]{.underline} OJP submitted performance data with FY 2009
Performance Budget Request to DOJ. OJP will continue to work to
establish better budget and performance linkages for future performance
budgets.

[Action Item: Develop a comprehensive evaluation plan for the programs
to obtain better information on their impact.]{.underline} OJP
implemented recommendations from the Urban Institute's 2003 evaluation
study, and have had a face-to-face meeting and discussed what the study
should include and options for how to perform the study (face-to-face
interviews versus phone surveys, etc.). Milestone: OJP is currently
determining the best implementation method; once that has been
determined, we will go back to the Urban Institute to get a cost
estimate by January 2009.

[Action Item: Work with the Congress to obtain authority to promote
greater consistency among state crime victims\' programs, ensuring that
crime victims are treated similarly no matter where they
live]{.underline}. OJP is working to establish a communications strategy
with management to approach Congress with the need for legislative
changes in order to provide more consistent services to victims of
crime. By December 2008, OJP will develop a plan for the appropriate
office to approach Congress with needed changes.

**FY 2005**

**[National Institute of Justice]{.underline}**

NIJ underwent a PART review during FY 2005 and received an overall
rating of \"Adequate.\" The assessment found that NIJ is generally well
managed and its investments are peer-reviewed and coordinated with
related agencies.

Four follow-up action items to improve program performance and OJP's
progress to date on these action items are outlined in the paragraphs
below.

[Action Item: Ensure that future budget requests explicitly link to the
long-term and annual goals for the program]{.underline}. Following
formal training for NIJ staff on performance budgeting, both the

FY 2008 President's Budget and the FY 2009 Performance Budget Request to
DOJ included annual and long term performance measures, linking budget
requests to program results. Program goals are linked to both the OJP
and DOJ Strategic Plan objectives for FYs 2007-2012. Future budget
requests will include annual and long term measures and funding
decisions will be based on successful completion of objectives.

[Action Item: Plan for an independent evaluation of key aspects of the
program]{.underline}. NIJ awarded a grant to the National Academies,
Committee on Law and Justice, to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of
the agency\'s effectiveness and relevance. The grant will extend through

October 31, 2009. A Committee to Evaluate NIJ will be appointed and will
develop a research methodology and protocol which will be approved by
the National Academies Institutional Review Board. In December 2007, the
NIJ Director met with the NAS research team to initiate discussion on
the evaluation.

[Action Item: Update and refocus NIJ\'s strategic plan to better
communicate the program\'s investment priorities to the Congress and
others]{.underline}. NIJ is working to update its Strategic Plan to
ensure that it is consistent with the OJP and DOJ Strategic Plans FY
2007-2012. NIJ is also reviewing all programs to ensure investments are
clearly linked to the NIJ Strategic Plan. This will help in
communicating a consistent message in all documentation (funding
requests and strategic planning) to both the Congress and the public.
During the fourth quarter of FY 2007, NIJ's performance management team
met monthly to plan for the completion of the revised strategic plan,
update the evidence section to the 2005 PART in preparation for the 2008
PART review, and identify opportunities for performance reporting
training.

[Action Item: Improve grant monitoring to address OIG-identified
weaknesses]{.underline}. NIJ has developed a new monitoring plan. In
addition, NIJ is working with the Office of Audit, Assessment and
Management (OAAM) and Grants Monitoring Working Group (GMWG) on
developing a standardized monitoring checklist and template. NIJ program
managers were trained on the use of the new checklist which is now in
OJP\'s Grants Management System (GMS). The FY08 site monitoring plan has
been completed and leadership will ensure the visits are conducted and
the resulting reports uploaded into GMS.

**[Bureau of Justice Statistics]{.underline}**

BJS underwent PART review during FY 2005 and received an overall rating
of "Effective." The assessment found that BJS is well-managed and
largely achieves its goals of providing information for policymakers and
the public. Three follow-up action items to improve performance and
OJP's progress to date on these action items are outlined in the
paragraphs below.

[Action Item: Include performance information in budget
submissions]{.underline}. Following formal training for BJS staff on
performance budgeting, both the FY 2008 and FY 2009 budget requests
included both annual and long term performance measures, linking budget
requests to program results. Program goals are linked to both the OJP
and DOJ Strategic Plan objectives for

FY 2007-2012. Future budget requests will include annual and long term
measures and funding decisions will be based on successful completion of
objectives.

[Action Item: Plan a comprehensive review of the Bureau to demonstrate
the impact of its programs]{.underline}. A panel study of the National
Academy of Science's Committee on National Statistics and Committee on
Law and Justice commenced in September 2006 and met five times
throughout 2007 to examine current BJS programs and activities and
determine the impact of programs and the means to enhance that impact.
Open meetings addressed the operation of other international crime
surveys; uses of BJS data for national, state and local policy and
decision making; and coverage and content of existing BJS statistical
series. In December 2007, BJS received an interim report which focused
exclusively on options for conducting the NCVS, which is the largest BJS
program. Public release of the report was January 8, 2008. Milestone:
BJS is reviewing the recommendations documented in the report and will
determine which recommendations to implement and develop an action plan
by September 2008.

[Action Item: Review data collection efforts for the National Criminal
Victimization Survey to identify potential cost efficiencies that will
still allow for statistically valid estimates]{.underline}. The review
panel, made up of experts from the statistical, social science, and
criminal justice communities and the National Academy of Science (NAS)
Committee on Statistics and Law and Justice met five times in 2007 and
produced an interim report providing alternative design options and
recommendations for the NCVS. The report was publicly released on

January 8, 2008. Milestone: BJS has initiated development of an action
plan and will soon begin methodological research on the panel
recommendations and proposed options for conducting the NCVS by
September 2008.

**[Multipurpose Law Enforcement Grants (JAG/Byrne Grants)]{.underline}**

In FY 2005, the Byrne program received an overall rating of \"Results
Not Demonstrated.\" Three follow-up action items to improve program
performance and OJP's progress to date on these action items are
outlined in the paragraphs below.

[Action Item: Define long-term and annual goals for the program, as well
as performance targets, and plan to collect performance data from
grantees]{.underline} OJP is in the process of defining long term and
annual goals for the multipurpose law enforcement grants. The program
underwent a review of its objectives, and a draft set of measures have
been developed. OJP will discuss measures with OMB during FY 2008.

[Action Item: Recommend the termination of the program because it is
unfocused and cannot demonstrate results]{.underline}. OJP recommended
termination of the program in the FY 2009 Performance Budget Request to
DOJ. OJP will continue to recommend termination of this program.

[Action Item: Plan evaluation work to determine the impact of the
program]{.underline}. Evaluation plans will be initiated after
performance measures are approved by OMB.

**FY 2004**

**[Weed and Seed]{.underline}**

During the FY 2004 PART process, the Weed and Seed program received a
rating of "Results Not Demonstrated." The Weed and Seed program
underwent a reassessment and received an overall rating of "Adequate."
The program demonstrated that progress had been made in program
management and strategic planning, leaving the following three follow-up
actions. The follow up actions and OJP's progress to date on these
action items are outlined in the paragraphs below.

[Action Item: Conduct a rigorous national evaluation to assess the
impact of the Weed and Seed program, or its component strategies, at
sites across the nation]{.underline}. Justice Research and Statistics
Association (JRSA) completed the application review and selected an
evaluator in May 2007. The selected evaluator began initial outreach to
all Weed & Seed sites to describe the evaluation initiative. Data
collection commenced and will continue throughout FY 2008.

[Action Item: Improve the automation of performance data collection and
handling to better track how the program is performing]{.underline}. OJP
automated its data collection form. The online forms were completed by
grantees and were submitted to OJP in May 2007. OJP is in the process of
reviewing and analyzing data reported and will work towards the analysis
of preliminary data collected and procedures.

**FY 2003**

**[National Criminal History Improvement Program]{.underline}**

NCHIP underwent a PART assessment in FY 2003 and received an overall
rating of "Moderately Effective." The assessment found that the program
is fairly strong overall, however could improve on
results.  Subsequently, NCHIP completed and fully implemented the
identified follow-on action items.  Beginning in FY 2006, OMB required
agencies to replace fully implemented follow-on actions with new items. 
The new follow-on items and OJP's progress to date on these action items
are outlined in the paragraphs below.

[Action Item: Establish a program to systematically assess records
quality, track and monitor improvements, and establish priorities for
funding]{.underline}. The Survey of State Criminal History Information
Systems data collection instrument was approved by OMB in May 2007. The
survey, a web-based data collection instrument, will expedite data
reporting of this survey. A report on national and state records quality
index was posted on the web in April 2007. Data should be available by
the end of FY 2007, with validated and verified results available in
March 2008.

[Action Item: Focus limited program resources on improving the
completeness and accuracy of criminal history records, especially the
final status of any action taken by the justice system are being
addressed by NCHIP.]{.underline} The FY 2007 NCHIP program announcement
identified the completeness of court dispositions as the highest
priority for states/territories to address in NCHIP applications. Forty
(40) applications were received and reviewed. Thirty (30) awards will be
made in the fourth quarter of 2007. OJP will conduct a national workshop
for identifying impediments to complete prosecutor and court disposition
reporting to state and national criminal record systems by the end of
2007; and implement a web-based training program for court
administrative personnel and judges for improving the quality and
completeness for protection and restraining orders in state and national
systems.

**[State Criminal Alien Assistance Program]{.underline}**

In FY 2003, SCAAP received an overall rating of \"Results Not
Demonstrated.\" Four follow-on actions and OJP's progress to date on
these action items are outlined in the paragraphs below.

[Action Item: Require states and localities to report "claimed
nationality," beginning in 2004, as part of the application process for
reimbursement to help screen potential ineligible costs]{.underline}.
OJP requested that jurisdictions identify claimed nationality as part of
FY 2004 program guidance. OJP has identified a potential vehicle for
jurisdictions to identify but not verify nationality utilizing
fingerprint cards. OJP will continue coordination with Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) on addressing nationality issue of SCAAP
formula during 2008.

[Action Item: Review whether any form of reimbursement should continue
for inmates whose nationality is unknown or cannot otherwise be
verified]{.underline}. OJP has reviewed and determined that no changes
to the formula would be made at this time. OJP will continue to research
and consider formula options.

[Action Item: Conduct a program evaluation for a sampling of states to
examine the accuracy of cost data submitted and the uses of these
reimbursements]{.underline}. OJP facilitated a SCAAP focus group in
October 2005, with attendees from a sampling of SCAAP states and
discussed issues related to cost data for reimbursement. During FY 2008,
evaluation plans will be initiated after performance measures have been
developed by OJP and approved by OMB.

**FY 2002**

**[Drug Court Program]{.underline}**

The Drug Court Program underwent a PART review in FY 2002 and received
an overall rating of \"Results Not Demonstrated.\" Three follow-up
actions and OJP's progress to date on these action items are outlined in
the paragraphs below.

[Action Item: Determine how many additional drug court programs are
needed to achieve program goals]{.underline}. OJP makes this
determination on an annual basis, and with consideration of the
program's appropriation amount, OJP reviews applications for readiness
of a community to establish a new drug court. Although OJP continues to
annually review applications for readiness of a community to establish a
new drug court, OJP has gradually shifted its program emphasis from
establishing new drug courts to building and enhancing existing
individual and statewide drug court capacity. This is being done through
training and technical assistance, MIS enhancements, evaluations,
increasing the quantity of additional services to drug court clients,
and drug court information dissemination.

[Action Item: Develop measures and timelines for the goals of improving
public safety and reducing drug abuse relapse]{.underline}. OJP
finalized measures in response to upcoming PART in

FY 2008. OJP vetted these measures with OMB during 1st quarter 2008. Two
measures on the number of drug court graduates were based on historical
data going back to 2005, while data collection commenced for three
outcome and one efficiency measure, using 2008 as the baseline year.

[Action Item: Improve grantees\' performance reporting]{.underline}. OJP
implemented a Business Process Improvement (BPI) working group on
performance measures. This working group included employees from all OJP
components who developed findings and recommendations to satisfy user
needs. This is the starting point for a Functional Requirements
Document, which will be the basis for future system design and
development efforts. OJP will begin taking steps toward implementation
of BPI recommendations concerning automation of data collection efforts.

**[Residential Substance Abuse Treatment]{.underline}**

The RSAT Program underwent a PART review in FY 2002 and received an
overall rating of "Results Not Demonstrated.\" Three follow-up actions
and OJP's progress to date on these action items are outlined in the
paragraphs below.

[Action Item: Develop long-term goals for reducing drug abuse relapses
among participants in residential substance abuse treatment programs
operated by grantees]{.underline}. OJP will further develop and vet
performance measures for RSAT through OMB. During FY 2008, new
performance measures will be developed and fielded after discussing with
OMB.

[Action Item: Improve the automation of performance data collection and
handling to better track how the program is performing]{.underline}. OJP
is investigating the feasibility of producing standardized spreadsheets
for grantees to upload data for better grantee ease of use and
consistency of data collection. Other methods for improving data
collection may entail controls on the quantity, location, and type of
information grantees can upload using the GMS system.

[Action Item: Make performance data available to the public via the
internet and publications]{.underline}. OJP is currently compiling data
for the progress reports. OJP will review and evaluate current data
available and make a determination as to the vehicle for making the data
accessible to the public during 2008.

[Action Item: Develop a model for estimating grantees enrollment and
treatment costs]{.underline}. Completed September 2005. OJP developed a
methodology in FY 2005 for establishing cost estimates.

[Action Item: Institute changes to improve the quality of grantee
performance data]{.underline}. Completed September 2005. OJP revised the
annual grantee report.

**[Juvenile Accountability Block Grants]{.underline}**

In FY 2002, JABG received an overall PART rating of \"Ineffective.\" OJP
volunteered five follow-on actions and OJP's progress to date on these
action items are outlined in the paragraphs below.

[Action Item: Develop outcome-oriented performance goals and measures
and make them available to the public in a transparent and meaningful
manner.]{.underline} OJJDP developed a performance measurement system
for the Juvenile Accountability Block Grants (JABG) in 2004; identified
mandatory measures in 2006; and provided states with reports of their
own JABG performance data. OJP began collecting data for mandatory
measures in FY 2007. Milestone: OJP will make the OJJDP performance
measures website and JABG data accessible to the public by April 2008.

[Action Item: Tighten the grant funding criteria and reporting
requirements to establish a link between program funding and
performance.]{.underline} OJP provided training to State JABG
specialists in October 2007 to outline new procedures which require
State grantees to utilize mandatory OJJDP performance measure data as
one criteria in making funding decisions for subgrantees. Milestone:
OJJDP will include a special condition in the grant award that specifies
that performance measure reporting is required, and that grant funding
may be withheld for grantees that do not report data, or who report data
late to OJJDP.

[Action Item: Collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and
make it available to public in a transparent and meaningful
manner.]{.underline} Via the OJJDP website, all JABG performance
measures are available in a transparent and meaningful manner for
viewing by the public. Training material on how to identify appropriate
measures and use the Data Collection Assistance Tool is also available
via the OJJDP website. OJP began collecting data for mandatory measures
in FY 2007. OJP will continue to make the OJJDP performance measures
website and JABG data more easily accessible to the public.

[Action Item: Demonstrate progress in achieving its long-term outcome
goals.]{.underline} Completed OJP mini-PART in January 2007, developed
performance measures, which have been vetted and approved by OMB.
Milestones: Use mini-PART results to establish realistic and ambitious
targets for JABG by January 2008, and begin collecting baseline
performance data from grantees by August 2008.

[Action Item: Conducting an evaluation to determine the program\'s
impact and addressing the evaluation findings.]{.underline} OJJDP will
convene an internal working group to identify key areas to be subject to
formal evaluation. This will include a formal analysis of grantee and
subgrantee program focus areas to determine the most frequently funded
categories. This will be the first step in developing an agency wide
research agenda. The first stage of this activity will be establishing a
timeline, to be completed by March 2008.

**[Community Oriented Policing Services]{.underline}**

In FY 2002, COPS received an overall PART rating of \"Results Not
Demonstrated.\" The assessment indicated that, even though the program
had good financial oversight procedures in place and there were no
financial material weaknesses found, the program's long-term goals had
no timelines or specific targets. Furthermore, the sheer number of
grantees made it difficult for the COPS Office to sustain detailed
oversight of how grant funds were being used, and evaluations of the
program's impact on crime had been inconclusive. In response to this
assessment, since FY 2006 the Administration has proposed to discontinue
funding for the COPS hiring programs.

The COPS Office has received approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) to update five of the six PART follow-up actions to a
status of completed.

[Action Item: Developing long term goals for the program that focus on
criminal justice outcomes.]{.underline} This has been completed. The
COPS Office dedicated resources to focus on long term and annual
performance measures and outcomes to assess the impact of grant programs
and received approval on a new set of annual and long term performance
measures.

[Action Item: Developing alternative evaluation strategies to assess the
impact of grant programs.]{.underline} This has been completed. From
January 2004 to August 2005, the General Accountability Office (GAO)
conducted an evaluation of the impact of COPS grants. The findings from
the GAO study found that COPS programs are associated with an increasing
community policing capacity of law enforcement agencies and have been a
modest contributor to the reduction in the crime rate. COPS and other
organizations also have sponsored evaluations of the COPS hiring grant
program. COPS continues to examine ways to plan for subsequent
evaluations of its programs.

[Action Item: Increasing local accountability by making information on
grantee activities more available to the public.]{.underline} This has
been completed. The COPS Office continuously updates and makes
improvements to our website to ensure COPS Office resources are
available to the public. In FY 2006, the COPS Office implemented the
American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) on our website which will
assist COPS in targeting areas of improvement for better dissemination
of information to the public. In addition, in FY 2007, the COPS Office
developed the "Resource Information Center" on our website which allows
the public to search for COPS knowledge resource products. The COPS
Office's knowledge resource products are the result of grantee
cooperative agreement projects. The majority of these products focus on
providing information on best practices in the community policing field
as well as guidebooks on the implementation of community policing.

[Action Item: Increasing the level of grantee oversight as the number of
active grants declines.]{.underline} This has been completed. The COPS
Office is working with OJP and the Office of Audit, Assessment, and
Management (OAAM) per the DOJ Reauthorization. The COPS Office has also
developed a strategy that addresses both the PART follow-up action
requiring COPS to increase the level of grantee oversight as active
grants decline, as well as recommendations by the Office of Inspector
General that requires COPS to have a monitoring plan in place that is
risk-based. The risk-based approach will allow the COPS Office to
increase our oversight of grantees by better targeting grantees at
highest risk of performance problems and non-compliance with grant
requirements.

[Action Item: Realigning COPS funding structure to include only those
activities administered by the COPS Office.]{.underline} This has been
completed. The COPS Office has continued to request a realignment of the
COPS funding structure in each President's Budget to address the PART
follow-up action. This request has not yet been enacted.

[Action Item: Working with the Congress to terminate funding for
activities such as the COPS Hiring Grant program because it cannot
demonstrate results.]{.underline} The Administration has not requested
resources within subsequent budget submissions for the COPS hiring
programs.