U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division

Review of the Office of Justice Programs’ 

Forensic Science Improvement 

Grant Program 

December 2005 

 I-2006-002
______________________________________________________________________________________ 

U.S. Department of Justice i 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Department of Justice Paul Coverdell Forensic Science 

Improvement Grant Program (Coverdell Grant Program) provides funds to 

state and local governments to improve the timeliness and quality of 

forensic science and medical examiner services and to eliminate backlogs 

in the analysis of forensic evidence. The National Institute of Justice 

(NIJ), under the legal and fiscal oversight of the Office of Justice 

Programs (OJP), plans to distribute almost $15 million in fiscal year (FY) 

2005 Coverdell Grants. 

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) evaluated the FY 2005 

Coverdell Grant Program Announcement and application review process. 

In particular, we focused on the new “external investigation certification” 

requirement, imposed by the Justice for All Act of 2004, which requires 

Coverdell Grant applicants to submit: 

A certification that a government entity exists and an 

appropriate process is in place to conduct independent 

external investigations into allegations of serious negligence 

or misconduct substantially affecting the integrity of the 

forensic results committed by employees or contractors of 

any forensic laboratory system, medical examiner’s office, 

coroner’s office, law enforcement storage facility, or medical 

facility in the State that will receive a portion of the grant 

amount.1

RESULTS IN BRIEF

NIJ did not enforce the external investigation certification 

requirement imposed by the Justice for All Act of 2004. We found that 

NIJ’s FY 2005 Coverdell Grant Program Announcement did not give 

applicants necessary guidance. For example, in its announcement NIJ 

did not provide examples of the types of government entities and 

processes that could meet the certification requirement, did not direct 

applicants to provide the name of the government entity that would 

conduct investigations into allegations of serious negligence or 

misconduct, and did not require a letter from the named government 

 1 “External investigation certification” is NIJ’s term for the certification required 

by the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended by the Justice 

for All Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-405), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 3797k(4). 
______________________________________________________________________________________ 

U.S. Department of Justice ii 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division

entity acknowledging its responsibility to conduct investigations. 

Without the name of the government entity responsible for conducting an 

independent external investigation, NIJ cannot evaluate the applicants’ 

certifications or provide effective oversight of that portion of the Coverdell 

Grant Program. 

NIJ did not provide necessary guidance to applicants in the FY 2005 

Coverdell Grant Program Announcement. 

NIJ did not provide applicants with guidance on what constitutes 

an independent external investigation in the FY 2005 Coverdell Grant 

Program Announcement. Prior to the publication of the announcement, 

NIJ received questions regarding the external investigation certification 

requirement from the OIG, potential grant applicants, and the Innocence 

Project but did not include necessary guidance in the announcement.2 

Those questions sought information regarding the types of government 

entities and processes that could satisfy the certification requirement 

imposed by the Justice for All Act of 2004. NIJ program managers and 

attorneys in OJP’s Office of the General Counsel officials told us that 

they considered providing more guidance in the Coverdell Grant Program 

Announcement, but decided against it because the guidance would have 

to cover a wide variety of state and local government entities and 

investigation processes. 

The principal shortcomings in the FY 2005 Coverdell Grant 

Program Announcement were NIJ’s failure to provide examples of 

external investigation certifications and its failure to require applicants to 

name the government entity responsible for conducting the independent 

external investigation envisioned by the Justice for All Act of 2004. 

Further, when applicants sought clarification of the certification 

requirement in the announcement, NIJ still did not require them to name 

the government entity. In response to the announcement, 74 of the 223 

applicants did not submit an external investigation certification, and 56 

other applicants simply quoted the statutory language but did not 

provide the name of the government entity responsible for the 

investigations. 

After NIJ’s FY 2005 Coverdell Grant Program Announcement was 

published, the OIG reviewed the announcement and expressed concern 

 2 The Innocence Project is a non-profit legal clinic and criminal justice reform 

organization that represents clients involved in cases in which DNA testing of evidence 

may yield conclusive proof of innocence. 
______________________________________________________________________________________ 

U.S. Department of Justice iii 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division

to NIJ that the announcement did not provide applicants with sufficient 

guidance on what constitutes an independent external investigation for 

purposes of the certification. NIJ informed the OIG that it would not 

provide additional general guidance to all applicants but would respond 

to applicants’ questions and request the information necessary to 

evaluate the certifications on a case-by-case basis. 

NIJ did not request the information necessary to evaluate the 

applicants’ external investigation certifications. 

 After the applications were received, however, NIJ decided not to 

respond to applicants’ questions or request information on a case-bycase basis. Instead, in response to questions from applicants, NIJ 

provided eight examples of the types of government entities and 

processes that may or may not meet the external investigation 

certification requirement. NIJ directed all 223 applicants to review the 8 

examples and to complete a re-certification form provided by NIJ. The 

form quoted the Justice for All Act of 2004 certification requirement and 

directed applicants to provide only the name of the applicant agency and 

the signature of a certifying official from the applicant agency. In 

response, 198 applicants submitted re-certification forms; 25 applicants 

did not re-certify and these applicants were not considered for Coverdell 

Grants. 

Because NIJ still did not request the name of the government 

entity responsible for conducting external investigations, the 198 recertification forms that the applicants submitted did not contain the 

information necessary for NIJ to evaluate the certifications. Of the 198 

applicants who re-certified, 129 submitted the re-certification form as 

NIJ requested, and 69 submitted different information than that 

requested on the re-certification form. Nonetheless, NIJ approved all 198 

grant applications. 

 After reviewing the external investigation certifications and 

re-certification forms submitted to NIJ, we concluded that, prior to 

approving the Coverdell Grant applications, NIJ should have required 

each applicant to name the government entity in its certification. 

Further, to address the confusion and clarify the requirements of the 

certifications and re-certifications, we believe that NIJ also should have 

considered requiring each applicant to provide a letter from the named 

government entity acknowledging its obligation to conduct the 
______________________________________________________________________________________ 

U.S. Department of Justice iv 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division

independent external investigations envisioned by the Justice for All Act 

of 2004.3 Yet, NIJ did not require any of that information. 

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

NIJ did not enforce the external investigation certification 

requirement imposed by the Justice for All Act of 2004 during the 

application process or exercise effective oversight of this aspect of the FY 

2005 Coverdell Grant Program. The FY 2005 Coverdell Grant Program 

Announcement did not provide necessary guidance on how applicants 

could meet the external investigation certification requirement. The 

announcement also did not direct applicants to name the government 

entity with a process in place to conduct independent external 

investigations into allegations of serious negligence or misconduct under 

the grant. 

We believe that Coverdell Grant Program Announcements must 

provide necessary guidance to applicants and request the information 

required for NIJ to evaluate the external investigation certifications and 

conduct effective oversight of the grants. To meet the requirements of 

the Justice for All Act of 2004, we recommend that OJP, as part of its 

oversight of NIJ: 

1. Require that all Coverdell Grant Program Announcements contain 

guidance on what constitutes an independent external investigation 

and examples of government entities and processes that could satisfy 

the certification requirement. 

2. Require that each Coverdell Grant applicant, prior to receiving funds, 

provide the name of the government entity with a process in place to 

conduct independent external investigations into allegations of 

serious negligence or misconduct. 

3. Consider requiring each Coverdell Grant applicant, prior to receiving 

funds, to submit a letter from the government entity that will conduct 

independent external investigations acknowledging that the entity has 

the authority and process to investigate allegations of serious 

negligence or misconduct. 

 3 NIJ Guidelines: How to Submit Applications includes a requirement for grant 

applicants to submit letters of cooperation and support or administrative agreements 

from organizations with a significant responsibility under the grant. 
______________________________________________________________________________________ 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

BACKGROUND ................................................................................ 1

PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY......................................... 6

RESULTS OF THE REVIEW.............................................................. 7

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................... 15

APPENDIX I .................................................................................. 16 

APPENDIX II ................................................................................. 17 

APPENDIX III ................................................................................ 24 
______________________________________________________________________________________ 

U.S. Department of Justice 1 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division

BACKGROUND 

 The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) is responsible for developing 

programs to increase the nation’s capacity to prevent and control crime, 

improve the criminal and juvenile justice systems, increase knowledge 

about crime and related issues, and assist victims of crime. Led by an 

Assistant Attorney General, OJP is divided into five bureaus that provide 

training, collect and disseminate crime statistics, support technology 

development and research, and administer Department grants.4 In fiscal 

year (FY) 2004, OJP and its bureaus awarded 4,333 grants totaling more 

than $3.7 billion to state and local agencies to assist with criminal 

justice activities.5 To ensure the legal and fiscal responsibility of the 

Department’s grant programs, OJP’s Office of the General Counsel, Office 

of the Comptroller, and the Office of Budget and Management Services 

provide legal and fiscal advice to all five of OJP’s bureaus. 

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is one of OJP’s five bureaus. 

NIJ is the Department of Justice’s (Department) primary research, 

development, and evaluation agency. NIJ also awards grants to 

educational institutions, public agencies, non-profit and faith-based 

organizations, individuals, and certain for-profit organizations to conduct 

independent research on crime control and justice issues. Some of NIJ’s 

major programs include social science research and evaluation, 

technology development, forensic laboratory capacity development, 

technology assistance for state and local public safety agencies, and 

dissemination of information. In FY 2004, NIJ awarded 506 grants 

totaling approximately $300 million. 

NIJ Grant Process 

 NIJ solicits grant applications by releasing grant announcements 

on its web site or publishing them in the Federal Register. Grant 

announcements contain the program and eligibility description, 

application deadline, instructions for applying, and list of required 

documents. Applicants are required to submit their applications through 

an automated, online system called the Grants Management System, 

operated by OJP. Applicants must provide certain information with 

 4 The five OJP bureaus are the National Institute of Justice, the Bureau of 

Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. 

5 See Office of Justice Programs Resource Guide, Fiscal Year 2005 Edition. 
______________________________________________________________________________________ 

U.S. Department of Justice 2 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division

grant applications, including a detailed program narrative and abstract 

describing the purpose, goals, and objectives of the project to be funded; 

a budget detail worksheet and narrative; and several standard forms. In 

addition to these general documents, applicants must submit any 

information required by the particular grant for which they are applying. 

 NIJ’s grant announcements may also require that applicants make 

certain assurances in their applications by certifying that they have 

taken or will take certain actions and will comply with all applicable 

federal statutes and regulations during the period covered by the grant. 

In its publication, NIJ Guidelines: How to Submit Applications (NIJ 

Guidelines), NIJ provides general instructions and a checklist for 

completing grant applications in response to grant announcements. 

 NIJ may also request that applicants provide additional 

information to ensure that the application is accurate and that all 

certifications are factually correct. If an applicant provides all requested 

information and qualifies, the NIJ grant program manager forwards the 

application to the NIJ Director for approval. If the NIJ Director approves 

an application, OJP’s Office of the Comptroller and other OJP offices 

review the application. The Assistant Attorney General for the Office of 

Justice Programs’ signature is required before grant funds are paid. 

Coverdell Grants 

The Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program 

(Coverdell Grant Program), administered by NIJ, provides funds to state 

and local governments to improve the timeliness and quality of forensic 

science and medical examiner services.6 The Coverdell Grant Program is 

intended to assist state and local governments in eliminating backlogs in 

analyzing forensic evidence, including controlled substances, firearms 

examinations, forensic pathology, latent prints, questioned documents, 

toxicology, and trace evidence, and to improve the quality and reliability 

of forensic laboratory results. 

Studies and investigations funded by the Department, state and 

local governments, and non-profit groups have identified backlogs in 

processing forensic evidence at state and local crime laboratories and 

have uncovered incidents of negligence and misconduct by laboratory 

 6 NIJ defines “state” or “states” to include the 50 states, the District of 

Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, 

Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. For certain purposes, 

American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands are treated as one state. 
______________________________________________________________________________________ 

U.S. Department of Justice 3 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division

employees and contractors in several states. For example, a Bureau of 

Justice Statistics study of the 50 largest crime laboratories found that at 

the end of 2002, these laboratories had a backlog of approximately 

270,000 requests for forensic services, which represented a 132-percent 

increase from the beginning of 2002.7 In addition to these backlogs, 

several investigations have identified instances of negligence and 

misconduct in the processing of criminal evidence, such as DNA 

evidence, in at least four different forensic crime laboratories. In another 

example, a 2005 investigation of the Houston Police Department Crime 

Laboratory found that two laboratory analysts engaged in multiple 

incidents of scientific fraud for which they were not properly disciplined.8 

Prior to October 30, 2004, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 

Streets Act of 1968 required Coverdell Grant applicants to certify that: 

(1) they have developed a consolidated state plan for forensic science 

laboratories and a description of how the grant will be used to carry out 

that plan; (2) any forensic science laboratory system, medical examiner’s 

office, or coroner’s office that will receive some of the grant money uses 

generally accepted laboratory practices and procedures established by 

accrediting organizations; and (3) the amount of the grant used to 

construct a new facility will not exceed the specified limitations. 

FY 2005 Coverdell Grant Announcement and Application Review 

On October 30, 2004, Coverdell Grants became subject to a new 

certification requirement. The Justice for All Act of 2004 amended the 

Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to require a fourth 

certification from all state or local government applicants for Coverdell 

Grants. In addition to the first three certifications described above, 

applicants must now provide: 

A certification that a government entity exists and an 

appropriate process is in place to conduct independent 

external investigations into allegations of serious negligence 

or misconduct substantially affecting the integrity of the 

forensic results committed by employees or contractors of 

any forensic laboratory system, medical examiner’s office, 

coroner’s office, law enforcement storage facility, or medical 

 7 See 50 Largest Crime Labs, 2002 (Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime 

Laboratories), Bureau of Justice Statistics Fact Sheet, September 2004. 

8 See Third Report of the Independent Investigator for the Houston Police 

Department Crime Laboratory and Property Room, June 30, 2005. 
______________________________________________________________________________________ 

U.S. Department of Justice 4 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division

facility in the State that will receive a portion of the grant 

amount.9

During the Attorney General’s confirmation hearing on January 6, 

2005, Senate Judiciary Committee members asked two questions about 

the new Justice for All Act of 2004 certification requirement. The 

Attorney General was asked if he would “rigorously enforce” the new 

certification requirement. The Attorney General responded that if 

confirmed, under his direction the Department would “rigorously enforce 

the certification provision added by the Justice for All Act.” 

The Attorney General was then asked how the Department would 

require timely certification for states applying for FY 2005 Coverdell 

Grant funds. The Attorney General responded as follows: 

If confirmed, I will direct the NIJ to ensure that all applicants 

for [Coverdell] grant funds comply with this certification 

requirement. States that fail to provide this certification as 

part of the grant application process will be denied 

funding.10

In January 2005 representatives of the Innocence Project 

expressed concerns regarding the external investigation certification and 

Coverdell Grant applicants’ ability to certify.11 Based on these concerns, 

we asked NIJ how it planned to enforce the new certification 

requirement. After NIJ discussed the matter with OJP’s Office of the 

General Counsel, NIJ provided us with a plan to enforce the certification 

requirement on April 13, 2005. NIJ planned to notify applicants of the 

requirement, direct applicants to submit a certification as an appendix to 

their applications, and deny funding to any applicant that failed to 

provide the certification. NIJ notified applicants of the certification 

requirement in the April 21, 2005, Coverdell Grant Program 

Announcement, which established an application due date of May 24, 

2005. 

 9 The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended by the 

Justice for All Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-405), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 3797k(4). 

10 Confirmation Hearing on the Nomination of Alberto R. Gonzales to be Attorney 

General of the United States, United States Senate, January 6, 2005, p. 184 (Questions 

and Answers). 

11 The Innocence Project is a non-profit legal clinic and criminal justice reform 

organization that represents clients involved in cases in which DNA testing of evidence 

may yield conclusive proof of innocence. 
______________________________________________________________________________________ 

U.S. Department of Justice 5 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division

On May 12, 2005, the OIG sent a memorandum to the NIJ Director 

expressing concerns about the announcement and the external 

investigation certification. On May 27, 2005, NIJ met with the OIG to 

discuss our concerns that the announcement may not have provided 

sufficient guidance to applicants on the required external investigation 

certification or requested sufficient information from applicants for NIJ to 

evaluate the certifications. 

On June 30, 2005, NIJ notified all the FY 2005 Coverdell 

applicants via e-mail that the certifications they initially submitted would 

not be considered and that they were required to re-certify. The June 30, 

2005, e-mail contained a re-certification package which included 

examples of external investigation certifications and a re-certification 

form prepared by NIJ. The re-certification form quoted the Justice for All 

Act of 2004 certification language and required the name of the applicant 

agency and the signature of a certifying official from the applicant agency 

(see Appendix I). NIJ instructed all applicants to submit the signed recertification forms online, through the Grants Management System, by 

July 20, 2005. NIJ began reviewing the applications and re-certification 

forms on July 21, 2005, and approved or disapproved the grant 

applications, depending on the adequacy and completeness of the 

applications. NIJ forwarded the approved grant applications to OJP with 

a recommendation that they be considered for funding. 
______________________________________________________________________________________ 

U.S. Department of Justice 6 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division

PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY 

Purpose 

 The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) evaluated NIJ’s 

implementation of the requirement in the Justice for All Act of 2004 that 

Coverdell Grant applicants must certify that a government entity exists 

and an appropriate process is in place to conduct independent external 

investigations into allegations of serious negligence or misconduct. NIJ 

refers to this requirement as the “external investigation certification.” 

Scope 

The scope of this report is the development of the FY 2005 

Coverdell Grant Program Announcement and the application review 

process. The report focuses specifically on the external investigation 

certification requirement of the Justice for All Act of 2004. 

Methodology 

Interviews. We interviewed the former Principal Deputy Assistant 

Attorney General, the OJP General Counsel and two attorneys in the 

Office of the General Counsel who provided oversight and advice during 

the FY 2005 Coverdell Grant application process. We interviewed three 

representatives of the OJP’s Office of the Comptroller who reviewed 

Coverdell Grant applications. We also interviewed the NIJ Director and 

the managers responsible for the announcement and application review 

process. We interviewed representatives from the Innocence Project 

regarding the announcement and application review process. 

Document review. We reviewed NIJ and OJP documents, 

including various NIJ grant announcements; NIJ’s Guidelines: How to 

Submit Applications; the OJP Financial Guide 2005; the OJP Post-Award 

Instructions; relevant statutes and regulations; congressional testimony; 

articles and reports on problems identified with forensic laboratories; and 

information contained on NIJ’s web site. We also reviewed NIJ and OJP 

e-mails, letters, and memoranda documenting the development of the FY 

2005 Coverdell Grant Program Announcement, including questions 

applicants asked NIJ about the external investigation certification 

requirement. To evaluate the certifications, we reviewed the FY 2005 

Coverdell Grant Program Announcement and all 223 applications 

submitted in response to the announcement. 
______________________________________________________________________________________ 

U.S. Department of Justice 7 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division

RESULTS OF THE REVIEW 

In FY 2005, NIJ did not enforce the external 

investigation certification requirement of the Justice for 

All Act of 2004 or exercise effective oversight of the 

Coverdell Grant Program. Specifically, the FY 2005 

Coverdell Grant Program Announcement did not provide 

applicants with necessary guidance for meeting the 

external investigation certification requirement. NIJ 

was aware of the shortcomings in the announcement but 

failed to correct them. The lack of guidance in the 

Coverdell Grant Program Announcement resulted in a 

variety of inadequate external investigation 

certifications. 

NIJ did not provide necessary guidance to applicants in its FY 2005 

Coverdell Grant Program Announcement. 

 The FY 2005 Coverdell Grant Program Announcement did not 

provide adequate guidance to potential applicants on how to meet the 

external investigation certification requirement. The announcement did 

not provide examples of the types of government entities and processes 

that could meet the certification, or specify a particular format for 

submitting the certification, such as a standard form, template letter, or 

narrative description. Rather, NIJ simply informed potential applicants 

that a certification was required by statute. The announcement also did 

not require applicants to provide a statement naming the government 

entity with a process in place to conduct the independent external 

investigation required by the Justice for All Act of 2004. Because the 

Department relies on applicants’ statements in the grant application 

process, it is important that the applicants’ certifications contain 

information necessary to evaluate the validity of the certification and to 

support sanctions if applicants’ certifications are later determined to be 

false. We believe that with regard to the external investigation 

certification, the name of the government entity responsible for 

conducting the investigations is necessary to evaluate the certification 

and impose sanctions if the certification is later shown to be false. 

We asked NIJ why the FY 2005 Coverdell Grant Program 

Announcement did not require applicants to provide the name of the 

government entity as part of the external investigation certification. NIJ 

responded that it is the applicants’ responsibility to decide whether they 

can meet the certification requirement and that NIJ would accept the 
______________________________________________________________________________________ 

U.S. Department of Justice 8 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division

applicants’ certifications without requiring them to provide the name or 

other information identifying the government entity responsible for 

conducting independent external investigations. We asked OJP’s 

General Counsel whether it would have been reasonable to require 

applicants to provide a statement naming the government entity. The 

General Counsel agreed that it would be reasonable to request that 

applicants provide the name of the government entity. 

NIJ was aware of the shortcomings in the FY 2005 Coverdell Grant 

Program Announcement but failed to correct them. 

Prior to the publication of the FY 2005 Coverdell Grant Program 

Announcement, NIJ received inquiries from potential applicants and 

representatives from the Innocence Project on the external investigation 

certification. In February 2005, representatives from the Innocence 

Project and NIJ attended a panel discussion at the annual meeting of the 

American Academy of Forensic Sciences. The panel discussion covered 

the requirements of the external investigation certification, the types of 

government entities that will oversee the investigations, the parameters 

of the investigations, and the effect on other quality assurance program 

obligations. 

Innocence Project representatives also expressed concerns 

regarding the implementation of the certification requirement. 

Specifically, Innocence Project representatives expressed the need for 

Coverdell applicants to receive guidance on what constitutes an adequate 

external investigation certification. Beginning in February 2005, the OIG 

encouraged NIJ to provide guidance to potential applicants on the 

external investigation certification and to seek advice from other 

Department components and external organizations on how to 

administer the external investigation certification requirement effectively. 

Rather than provide guidance on what constitutes an adequate 

certification, OJP’s Office of the General Counsel and NIJ quoted the 

legislative language for the certification requirement in the 

announcement. NIJ stated it would respond to applicants’ specific 

questions about the external investigation certification requirement (such 

as whether or not a particular process might be appropriate) on a 

case-by-case basis after consulting OJP’s Office of the General Counsel. 

NIJ informed the OIG of this decision and its plan of action on April 13, 

2005, and published the announcement on April 21, 2005. 

After the publication of the announcement, representatives from 

some of the applicant agencies and other state and local government 

officials questioned NIJ about the form and content of the external 
______________________________________________________________________________________ 

U.S. Department of Justice 9 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division

investigation certification. Representatives from at least five applicant 

agencies requested clarification from NIJ on whether their agencies’ 

structure would permit them to certify that a government entity existed 

and a process was in place to conduct the required independent external 

investigation. NIJ staff forwarded these questions to OJP’s Office of the 

General Counsel. According to attorneys in the Office of the General 

Counsel, they provided informal guidance to applicants, without 

dispensing legal advice, regarding the criteria to determine whether a 

government entity existed and whether an appropriate process was in 

place to conduct the required independent external investigations. OJP’s 

Office of the General Counsel did not record the informal guidance it 

provided to Coverdell Grant applicants. 

We asked the attorneys in OJP’s Office of the General Counsel how 

they evaluated the information the applicants provided. They responded 

that they did not tell applicants whether they could legally make the 

external investigation certification because it is the applicant’s 

responsibility to certify that a process is in place to conduct the required 

investigations, and OJP’s Office of the General Counsel is not permitted 

to provide legal advice to applicants. According to attorneys in OJP’s 

Office of the General Counsel, they told applicants that the certification 

does not require that the applicant agency be directly responsible for 

conducting the investigations itself; rather, applicants are only 

responsible for certifying that a government entity exists and an 

appropriate process is in place to conduct independent external 

investigations. Attorneys in OJP’s Office of the General Counsel stated 

that if there were any doubts about the validity of a certification, it would 

be NIJ’s responsibility to obtain additional information from the 

applicants. 

 

On May 12, 2005, the OIG wrote to the NIJ Director, expressing 

concerns about the announcement and the external investigation 

certification. The OIG memorandum stated: 

We believe that the NIJ will not have the information 

necessary to evaluate the applications and to exercise 

effective oversight over the certification requirement. We 

also believe that grantees have not been given sufficient 

guidance as to what constitutes an independent external 

investigation. 

However, NIJ did not provide additional guidance as to what 

constituted an appropriate process to conduct independent external 

investigations before the application period closed. Instead, NIJ directed 

the five applicants that asked specific questions to submit their 
______________________________________________________________________________________ 

U.S. Department of Justice 10 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division

applications − in order to meet the May 24, 2005, application deadline −

without the external investigation certifications. OJP’s Office of the 

General Counsel recommended to NIJ that it flag these five applications 

and ensure that the applicants submitted the external investigation 

certifications before their applications were approved. 

OIG representatives met with NIJ on May 27, 2005. The OIG 

expressed continued concern that NIJ would not have the information 

necessary to evaluate the external investigation certification requirement 

in the applications and to exercise effective oversight over that 

requirement. However, NIJ did not revise and reissue the FY 2005 

Coverdell Grant Program Announcement to include guidance or collect 

additional information from individual applicants on a case-by-case 

basis. 

The lack of guidance in the Coverdell Grant Program Announcement 

and NIJ’s response to the applicants’ questions resulted in 

inadequate certifications. 

 The OIG reviewed the external investigation certifications in all 223 

FY 2005 Coverdell applications. We found that 87 applicants did not 

submit any external investigation certification or submitted incomplete 

certifications.12 Another 56 applicants quoted the Justice for All Act of 

2004 but did not provide the name of the government entity that would 

conduct the independent external investigations (Chart 1, next page). 

OJP’s Office of the General Counsel told us that NIJ did not request that 

they review the 149 applications that contained external investigation 

certifications to determine the legal adequacy of the certification. 

Consequently, OJP’s Office of the General Counsel told us it was 

unaware that some of the initial certifications did not contain the 

information required by statute. 

 12 The 13 incomplete certifications were submitted by 8 applicants who certified 

that a process was in place but did not name entity other than themselves; 4 applicants 

who certified the existence of more than 1 government entity, but did not certify that 

any processes were in place; and 1 applicant who certified that it would collect 

certifications from grant recipients prior to distributing funds. 
______________________________________________________________________________________ 

U.S. Department of Justice 11 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division

Chart 1: Types of External Investigation Certifications Submitted 

by the 223 FY 2005 Coverdell Applicants 

Source: OIG analysis of FY 2005 Coverdell applications received by NIJ 

We believe the inadequate certifications were caused by NIJ’s 

failure to provide adequate guidance to applicants and to request, in the 

Coverdell Grant Program Announcement, a statement from the 

applicants containing the name of the government entity responsible for 

conducting the independent external investigation envisioned by the 

Justice for All Act of 2004. Providing the name of the government entity 

would not be an undue burden on applicants; more than half (80 of 149) 

of the applicants who submitted external investigation certifications 

named the government entity responsible for conducting independent 

external investigations or provided a letter from the government entity 

even though they were not required to do so. 

Quoted statute (56)

Provided letter or

signed certification

from government

entity (9)

Provided certification

and name of 

government entity

(71)

Did not provide

certification or

provided incomplete

certification (87)
______________________________________________________________________________________ 

U.S. Department of Justice 12 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division

After the FY 2005 Coverdell Grant applications were 

received, NIJ provided additional guidance but directed 

applicants to complete a re-certification form that did 

not request the information necessary for NIJ to 

evaluate the applicants’ external investigation 

certifications. 

NIJ’s re-certification form did not provide specific guidance to 

applicants. 

After receiving these applications, NIJ decided to provide general 

guidance and require all applicants to complete a re-certification form. 

NIJ disseminated the form as part of a re-certification package it 

provided to all 223 applicants via e-mail on June 30, 2005. In addition 

to the re-certification form, NIJ provided applicants with guidance to 

assist them in determining whether they could properly make the 

certification. The guidance contained eight factual examples of 

government entities and processes under which an external investigation 

certification might or might not be appropriate. NIJ instructed 

applicants to review the statutory requirements and the eight examples 

to determine whether they could properly make the external certification. 

If, after reviewing the information, an applicant determined that it could 

certify, an appropriate official for the applicant agency was to simply sign 

the re-certification form. 

As shown in Appendix I, the re-certification form only required the 

name of the applicant agency and a signature from the applicant 

agency’s certifying official. NIJ stated that the certifying official must be 

both familiar with the requirements of the certification and have the 

authority to make such a certification on behalf of the applicants. NIJ 

told applicants not to submit specific documentation on the government 

entity or process that they had in place for conducting investigations. 

Applicants were to submit the signed re-certification forms by July 20, 

2005. 

The re-certification forms did not require applicants to submit the 

information necessary to evaluate the applicants’ certifications. 

While NIJ’s re-certification effort finally provided some guidance to 

applicants as to what constituted a government entity with an 

appropriate process in place to conduct independent external 

investigations, the re-certification process was still flawed. The recertification form NIJ instructed applicants to submit did not require 

them to name the government entity that would conduct independent 

external investigations. It also did not provide any evidence that the 
______________________________________________________________________________________ 

U.S. Department of Justice 13 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division

government entity acknowledged its responsibility, under the Justice for 

All Act of 2004, to investigate allegations of serious negligence or 

misconduct by the grant recipient. 

Rather than requiring re-certification forms, we believe that after 

NIJ received the applications containing inadequate certifications, NIJ 

should have required all applicants to name the government entity in the 

certification. We also believe that NIJ should have considered whether to 

require applicants to provide a letter from that entity acknowledging its 

responsibility to investigate allegations of serious negligence or 

misconduct. NIJ’s Guidelines include a requirement for grant applicants 

to submit letters of cooperation and support or administrative 

agreements from organizations with a significant responsibility under the 

grant.13 NIJ has required such letters in two other grant 

announcements: the Forensic Casework DNA Backlog Reduction 

Program (FY 2005) and the Convicted Offender DNA Backlog Reduction 

Program (FY 2005). 

Because of NIJ’s failure to require this information, none of the recertification forms submitted by the applicants contained the information 

necessary for NIJ to evaluate the external investigation certifications. Of 

the 223 applicants, 25 did not re-certify. Of the 198 applicants that recertified, 129 submitted the re-certification form that NIJ requested, 33 

submitted certifications signed by an official of an agency other than the 

applicant, and 36 submitted forms that did not clearly indicate the name 

of the government agency submitting the certification (Chart 2, next 

page). However, NIJ approved all 198 grant applications. 

 13 See National Institute of Justice Guidelines: How to Submit Applications, 

March 2005, p. 16. 
______________________________________________________________________________________ 

U.S. Department of Justice 14 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division

Chart 2: Types of Re-certifications Submitted by 

the 223 FY 2005 Coverdell Applicants 

Source: OIG analysis of FY 2005 Coverdell re-certification forms received by NIJ 

In fact, in some cases, NIJ’s re-certification form gathered less 

information than some applicants were willing to supply voluntarily. We 

found that 51 applicants that named the government entity on their 

original certifications did not do so on their re-certification forms. We 

also determined that NIJ did not ask OJP’s Office of the General Counsel 

to review the applicants’ re-certification forms; OJP’s Office of the 

General Counsel was therefore unaware that some of the re-certification 

forms did not contain the name of the applicant agency that NIJ 

requested, or that some were not signed by an appropriate official of the 

applicant agency. 

Rather than relying on a form, we believe that adopting the 

practice of requiring Coverdell Grant applicants to submit a letter from 

the government entity responsible for conducting the independent 

external investigations could: (1) reduce applicants’ confusion over their 

ability to submit the certification, (2) produce a greater number of 

complete certifications, and (3) increase NIJ’s and OJP’s ability to 

evaluate the applicants’ certifications. 

Did not submit a recertification form

(25)

Submitted recertification form

signed by official of 

agency other than

applicant (33)

Submitted recertification on

NIJ's requested form

(129)

Submitted recertification form

that did not indicate

name of government

agency (36)
______________________________________________________________________________________ 

U.S. Department of Justice 15 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

NIJ did not enforce the external investigation certification 

requirement imposed by the Justice for All Act of 2004 during the 

application process or exercise effective oversight of this aspect of the FY 

2005 Coverdell Grant Program. The FY 2005 Coverdell Grant Program 

Announcement did not provide necessary guidance on how applicants 

could meet the external investigation certification requirement. The 

announcement also did not direct applicants to name the government 

entity with a process in place to conduct independent external 

investigations into allegations of serious negligence or misconduct under 

the grant. 

We believe that Coverdell Grant Program Announcements must 

provide necessary guidance to applicants and request the information 

required for NIJ to evaluate the external investigation certifications and 

conduct effective oversight of the grants. To meet the requirements of 

the Justice for All Act of 2004, we recommend that OJP, as part of its 

oversight of NIJ: 

1. Require that all Coverdell Grant Program Announcements contain 

guidance on what constitutes an independent external investigation 

and examples of government entities and processes that could satisfy 

the certification requirement. 

2. Require that each Coverdell Grant applicant, prior to receiving funds, 

provide the name of the government entity with a process in place to 

conduct independent external investigations into allegations of 

serious negligence or misconduct. 

3. Consider requiring each Coverdell Grant applicant, prior to receiving 

funds, to submit a letter from the government entity that will conduct 

independent external investigations acknowledging that the entity has 

the authority and process to investigate allegations of serious 

negligence or misconduct. 
______________________________________________________________________________________ 

U.S. Department of Justice 16 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division

APPENDIX I: FY 2005 COVERDELL GRANT APPLICATION 

RE-CERTIFICATION FORM 

Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program Certification 

I, (certifying official name and title), certify that a government entity exists and an 

appropriate process is in place to conduct independent external investigations into 

allegations of serious negligence or misconduct substantially affecting the integrity of the 

forensic results committed by employees or contractors of any forensic laboratory 

system, medical examiner's office, coroner's office, law enforcement storage facility, or 

medical facility in the State that will receive a portion of the grant amount. 

___________________________________ __________________ 

Signature of Certifying Official Date 

 

_________________________________ __________________ 

Applicant Telephone Number 
______________________________________________________________________________________ 

U.S. Department of Justice 17 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division

APPENDIX II: OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS’ RESPONSE 
______________________________________________________________________________________ 

U.S. Department of Justice 18 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division

 
______________________________________________________________________________________ 

U.S. Department of Justice 19 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division
______________________________________________________________________________________ 

U.S. Department of Justice 20 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division
______________________________________________________________________________________ 

U.S. Department of Justice 21 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division
______________________________________________________________________________________ 

U.S. Department of Justice 22 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division
______________________________________________________________________________________ 

U.S. Department of Justice 23 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division
______________________________________________________________________________________ 

U.S. Department of Justice 24 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division

APPENDIX III: OIG’S ANALYSIS OF OJP’S RESPONSE 

On October 13, 2005, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) sent 

copies of the draft report to the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) with a 

request for written comments. OJP responded to us in a memorandum 

dated November 4, 2005. The actions taken and planned by OJP to 

enforce the external investigation certification requirement imposed by 

the Justice for All Act of 2004 are responsive in part to our 

recommendations. 

OJP’s Response 

 OJP did not agree with our finding that the National Institute of 

Justice (NIJ) “did not enforce the external investigation certification 

requirement imposed by the Justice for All Act of 2004 [42 U.S.C. 

§ 3797k(4)] during the application process or exercise effective oversight 

of this aspect of the FY 2005 Coverdell Grant Program.” 

 In explaining its disagreement, OJP suggested – although it did not 

explicitly state – that it does not have the legal authority to implement 

the external investigation certification requirement in the manner that we 

suggest. OJP stated it was acting on advice of OJP counsel when it 

concluded that § 3797k(4) does not require that an independent external 

investigation process is in place before NIJ makes an award. Rather, 

according to OJP, the statute restricts NIJ to merely ensuring that a 

certification is in place before NIJ issues an award. OJP submitted that 

its interpretation of § 3797k(4) “makes the applicants themselves 

primarily responsible” for determining that a government entity exists 

and a process is in place to conduct independent external investigations 

rather than placing the responsibility on OJP. OJP concluded that once 

formula program applicants (which receive about 75 percent of the total 

funding) have made the required certifications, “NIJ is statutorily denied 

any substantive discretion in deciding which applicants are eligible.” 

 In support of the validity of the existing NIJ process, OJP’s 

response also noted that NIJ provided additional guidance to the 

FY 2005 applicants and that “NIJ did not fund seven applications for the 

competitive portion of the program and two State applications for the 

formula portion of the program because the applicants did not submit 

the certification required by § 3797k(4) and the [FY 2005] Coverdell 

Grant Program Announcement.” OJP’s response also reported, “Of the 

69 certifications that the Draft Report indicates vary from the form NIJ 
______________________________________________________________________________________ 

U.S. Department of Justice 25 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division

prescribed, only 37 pertain to applications that were in fact funded by 

NIJ.” 

 In response to our recommendations that each Coverdell Grant 

applicant be required to provide the name of the government entity that 

will conduct any external investigation and that OJP consider requiring a 

letter from the government entity, OJP stated, “Because the Coverdell 

[Grant] [P]rogram is in large part a formula program, it is not clear that 

such an extra-statutory requirement would be legally defensible.” OJP’s 

response also suggested that the burden of providing the name of the 

government entity and a letter from the government entity “on applicants 

and/or NIJ well might be significantly heavier than the OIG may believe.” 

 

OIG Analysis of OJP’s Response 

The OIG disagrees with OJP’s suggestion that NIJ lacks the legal 

authority to execute our recommendations. First, the plain language of 

the statute itself grants this authority to NIJ. Second, NIJ’s actions in 

similar contexts demonstrate that it has the authority to implement our 

recommendations. 

Section 3797k(4) provides that a state shall submit “a certification 

that a government entity exists and an appropriate process is in place to 

conduct independent external investigations” into allegations of serious 

negligence or misconduct. Clearly, in enacting § 3797k(4), Congress 

intended to do more than merely extract a promise from the applicants 

that an external investigation process was in place. Rather, Congress 

intended for the applicants to actually put such a process into place 

prior to receiving grant funds. 

As the agency charged by Congress with implementing the 

Coverdell Grant Program, NIJ has inherent authority to regulate the 

grant application process to ensure that an external investigation process 

is in place. The statute expressly gives the Attorney General the 

authority to promulgate “procedures relating to the submission and 

review of applications for grants” under § 3797k.14 A reading of the plain 

language of § 3797k(4), coupled with § 3797n, demonstrates that NIJ 

may require that the external investigation certification submitted by 

applicants contain both the name of the investigative government entity 

and a letter of support from that entity. 

 14 42 U.S.C. § 3797n; see also 28 C.F.R. Part 66, Uniform Administrative 

Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments.
______________________________________________________________________________________ 

U.S. Department of Justice 26 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division

Moreover, even if the statute were to be considered ambiguous on 

this point, NIJ, as the agency charged with its implementation, may 

reasonably interpret the statute in the course of implementation. We 

believe that an interpretation that the statute would allow OJP to require 

applicants to submit both the name of the government entity and a letter 

of support is a reasonable interpretation that would be entitled to 

deference and would withstand challenge under the Administrative 

Procedures Act.15 

We also disagree with OJP’s conclusion that requiring the 

certification process to include the identity of the government entity and 

requiring a letter of support from that government entity shifts the 

responsibility for setting up such a process from the grant applicant to 

NIJ. Requiring grant applicants to submit the government entity’s 

identity and a letter of support will provide a strong disincentive for any 

grant applicant to make the requisite certification without first 

communicating with a government entity and establishing a process for 

conducting external investigations. The reason for this requirement is 

clear – by identifying the government entity, the certification becomes 

readily verifiable. Thus, rather than shifting the burden to OJP, our 

recommendation will make it more likely that the applicant will meet its 

burden of establishing an external investigation process and will make it 

easier for OJP to exercise its oversight function. 

OJP acknowledged this oversight function in its response when it 

stated that “if there were a credible allegation or credible evidence that a 

particular certification was false or faulty, NIJ would have a duty to 

inquire.” Surely, if the statute authorizes OJP to investigate allegations 

of false certifications, the statute also authorizes OJP to implement 

procedures to prevent false certifications in the first place. 

NIJ’s argument that it has no discretion in awarding the formula 

portion of the program is similarly unpersuasive. Even with funds 

specifically directed to be allocated to particular states, Congress 

required that these funds only be awarded to a state that “meets the 

requirements of § 3797k.”16 NIJ, by requiring that applicants provide the 

name of the government entity and a letter of support from that entity, 

can ensure that states receiving formula-funded grants are meeting the 

requirements of § 3797k as directed by Congress. 

 15 Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 

(1984). 

16 42 U.S.C. § 3797l. 
______________________________________________________________________________________ 

U.S. Department of Justice 27 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division

Significantly, OJP’s position that NIJ lacks substantive 

discretion and may request and accept only the information 

specifically prescribed by § 3797k(4) from Coverdell Grant applicants 

is inconsistent with NIJ’s own actions with regard to the FY 2005 

Coverdell Grant external investigation certifications. The 223 

applications we reviewed showed that NIJ exercised its substantive 

discretion in both rejecting certifications that followed the prescribed 

format and accepting certifications that did not follow the prescribed 

format: 

• NIJ rejected 149 external investigation certifications presented 

with the original Coverdell Grant Applications and required 

applicants to re-certify; 

• NIJ directed five applicants to submit their applications − in 

order to meet the May 24, 2005, application deadline − without 

an external investigation certification; and 

• NIJ funded 37 applications containing an external investigation 

certification that the OIG found was not in the form prescribed 

by NIJ. 

NIJ’s actions in the context of other grant applications also 

demonstrate that NIJ has exercised similar authority in the past. As 

stated in the draft report, NIJ’s Guidelines include a requirement for 

grant applicants to submit letters of cooperation and support or 

administrative agreements from organizations with a significant 

responsibility under the grant. NIJ has required such letters in two 

other grant announcements. There is no obvious reason why NIJ is 

permitted to prescribe procedures for grant applicants in these other 

contexts, but not for the Coverdell Grant Program. Indeed, NIJ’s own 

actions in administering the FY 2005 Coverdell Grant Program suggest 

that NIJ understands it does have discretion to interpret § 3797k(4). If 

NIJ has the authority to reject certifications in their entirety and to 

consider applications with no certifications, it must also have the 

authority to request the information reasonably necessary to evaluate the 

certifications that applicants do submit. 

Finally, to the extent that OJP rejected our legal analysis and 

recommendations because OJP believed that it lacks the legal authority 

to implement the recommendations, then we recommend that OJP seek 

an opinion on this issue from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) pursuant 
______________________________________________________________________________________ 

U.S. Department of Justice 28 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division

to 28 C.F.R. § 0.25; 28 U.S.C. § 512. Once the legal issue is resolved, 

then OJP can reevaluate our recommendations as a matter of policy. 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Recommendation 1: Require that all Coverdell Grant Program 

Announcements contain guidance on what constitutes an independent 

external investigation and examples of government entities and processes 

that could satisfy the certification requirement. 

 Status: Recommendation 1 is Resolved – Open. 

 Summary of OJP’s Response. As a matter of policy, OJP concurred 

with our recommendation and stated that NIJ will provide guidance 

(including examples) in future Coverdell Grant Program Announcements. 

NIJ’s guidance will be designed to illustrate elements of the external 

investigation certification that an applicant must take into account in 

determining whether it can make the external investigation certification. 

OJP stated that the guidance it plans to provide is not required by 

statute. 

 OIG Analysis. The actions taken and planned by OJP to provide 

guidance to Coverdell Grant Program applicants are responsive to our 

recommendation. Our recommendation was not based on a statutory 

requirement; it was based on NIJ’s program management responsibility 

to provide guidance to applicants whether or not a specific statute 

requires that NIJ provide guidance for a specific certification. 

 So that we may evaluate the implementation of this 

recommendation, please provide a copy of the draft of the FY 2006 

Coverdell Grant Program Announcement before it is published. 

 Recommendation 2: Require that each Coverdell Grant 

applicant, prior to receiving funds, provide the name of the government 

entity with a process in place to conduct independent external 

investigations into allegations of serious negligence or misconduct. 

 Status: Recommendation 2 is Unresolved – Open. 

 

 Summary of OJP’s Response. OJP did not agree to require 

Coverdell Grant applicants to provide the name of the government entity 

because § 3797k(4) “includes no such requirement.” Further, OJP 

stated, “It is not clear that such an extra-statutory requirement would be 

legally defensible. . . . OJP and NIJ will, however, consider requesting, 

as an optional matter, in future Coverdell Grant Program 
______________________________________________________________________________________ 

U.S. Department of Justice 29 

Office of the Inspector General 

Evaluation and Inspections Division

Announcements that applicants provide the information that the OIG 

suggests we require as a mandatory matter.” 

 OIG Analysis. To properly administer Coverdell Grants, NIJ should 

prescribe the form and content of certifications, review applicants’ 

certifications to decide if the specific information is adequate, and 

determine if each application is acceptable. If OJP disagrees with our 

legal analysis and concludes that NIJ does not have the statutory 

authority to implement this recommendation, we recommend that this 

issue be referred to OLC for resolution. If OLC determines that NIJ has 

the authority to implement this recommendation, OJP should reconsider 

its decision not to require applicants to submit the names of the 

government entities. Please provide us with a description of OJP’s 

decision by January 31, 2006. 

Recommendation 3: Consider requiring each Coverdell Grant 

applicant, prior to receiving funds, to submit a letter from the 

government entity that will conduct independent external investigations 

acknowledging that the entity has the authority and process to 

investigate allegations of serious negligence or misconduct. 

 

Status: Recommendation 3 is Unresolved – Open. 

Summary of OJP’s Response. OJP considered requiring each 

Coverdell Grant applicant to submit a letter from the government entity, 

but elected not to do so at least in part because, “It is not clear that such 

an extra-statutory requirement would be legally defensible.” 

 OIG Analysis. Based on OJP’s response, it appears that OJP and 

NIJ are rejecting this recommendation because they believe they lack the 

requisite authority to implement it, despite the OIG’s conclusion to the 

contrary. To resolve this legal disagreement, OJP should refer the 

question to OLC for resolution. Should OLC determine that OJP has the 

requisite authority, OJP should reconsider its decision not to require 

each Coverdell Grant applicant to submit a letter from the government 

entity that will conduct independent external investigations. Please 

provide us with your decision by January 31, 2006.