U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

25–547 PDF 2017

EXAMINING MISMANAGEMENT IN OFFICE OF 

JUSTICE PROGRAMS GRANTMAKING 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 14, 2016 

Serial No. 114–141 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://www.house.gov/reform 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

MARK WALKER, North Carolina 

ROD BLUM, Iowa 

JODY B. HICE, Georgia 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin 

WILL HURD, Texas 

GARY J. PALMER, Alabama 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

TED LIEU, California 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

JENNIFER HEMINGWAY, Staff Director 

SEAN BREBBIA, Senior Counsel 

SHARON CASEY, Deputy Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina, Chairman 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Vice Chair 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on July 14, 2016 ............................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

The Hon. Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 4 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 6 

Ms. Beth McGarry, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Office 

of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 13 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 15 

Ms. Gretta Goodwin, Acting Director, Homeland Security and Justice, U.S. 

Government Accountability Office 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 20 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 22 

Mr. Jeffrey Sedgwick, Ph.D., Executive Director, Justice Research and Statistics Association 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 44 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 47 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

EXAMINING MISMANAGEMENT IN OFFICE OF 

JUSTICE PROGRAMS GRANTMAKING 

Thursday, July 14, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:14 p.m., in Room 

2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mark Meadows [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Meadows, Walberg, Carter, and 

Plaskett. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. The Subcommittee on Government Operations will come to order. And without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. 

I want to thank you once again for the delay and for your graciousness with that. 

Obviously, the Office of Justice Programs, or OJP, as it is commonly referred to, is the largest of three departments—of the Department of Justice grantmaking entities. OJP gave out more than 

$4 billion in fiscal year 2015, with about $1.2 billion issued for 

State, local, and tribal law enforcement, plus another $251 million 

for the juvenile justice initiatives. 

That is a lot of the programs and a whole lot of money. There 

is no doubt that grants can provide an important resource to State 

and local government entities, allowing them to do important work 

in many areas, including crime prevention and reduction of recidivism. The Office of Justice Programs has a responsibility to effectively manage its grants program, and it is our job in Congress to 

make sure that OJP is carrying out its responsibility and spending 

the taxpayer dollars responsibly and effectively. 

Over the last decade, OJP has made improvements in its 

grantmaking process, thanks in no small part to the oversight provided by GAO and the Inspector General. We are here today to discuss those improvements and also to discuss the status of some of 

the open recommendations made by both GAO and the Inspector 

General. 

While OJP has made progress in its grant management, the Inspector General’s reports and audits show that there is still room 

for improvement. For example, the IG published a report last year 

that found that OJP’s grant money was used to build two correctional facilities that were at least 250 percent larger than they 

needed at an excess cost of some $32 million. This was a $70 million grant to the Navajo Division of Public Safety to plan and conVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:24 Jun 22, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\25547.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

struct a tribal justice facility, and somewhere along the way the 

plans changed, and there was a massive increase in the size and 

scope of that facility. 

One of the facilities had an approved plan for a 42-bed prison 

that ended up, they ended up building a facility that had 132 beds. 

This, despite having an average jail occupancy between 14 and 22 

inmates a month. The other facility, with averages of 7 to 11 inmates, ended up with 80 beds. 

They built these buildings so big that they do not have enough 

money to fully staff them. They sit there today largely empty, a 

$70 million price tag for nearly empty prisons. 

Look, my issue here is not about the grant itself. I can tell you 

that in my district there have been the deployment of some of these 

grants in effective ways. But it is blatantly mismanaged taxpayer 

dollars, plain and simple, that we have to address, and here is the 

question I would like to get to today. 

Are we actually managing these grants at a sufficiently detailed 

level to achieve results, prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, or are we 

just checking the boxes? And so I am interested to hear from all 

of our witnesses today on the many issues presented by the DOJ’s 

grant management and the progress that has been made and the 

progress that still needs to be made. 

And so, with that, I would like to now recognize my good friend, 

the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands, Ms. Plaskett, for her 

opening remarks. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

And good afternoon to all of you. Thank you for attending this 

Subcommittee on Government Operations. 

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing 

to highlight very important office at the Department of Justice, 

that being the Office of Justice Programs. Currently, OJP oversees 

7,000 active grants, some of which are mandated by Congress, totaling more than $7.5 billion. 

As a former prosecutor and also an official at the Department of 

Justice where, working under the Deputy Attorney General’s office, 

I oversaw some of OJP’s work, I know firsthand what an important 

partner OJP is to our local and State governments by providing resources for training, coordination, and equipment to support law 

enforcement efforts. OJP funds are used to support anti-gang initiatives, bulletproof vest purchases, and programs to counter spousal or child abuse and trafficking, human trafficking. 

These grants make a difference in people’s lives. Just 2 weeks 

ago, OJP reported that the Internet Crimes against Children’s 

Task Force, funded through OJP grant program, arrested more 

than 1,300 suspected child predators. Last fall, OJP announced the 

addition of five cities to the Violence Reduction Network, a collaborative program between DOJ and cities which have contributed to 

the arrest of criminals suspected of violent crimes, such as sexual 

assault and homicide. 

As part of its own oversight, OJP assesses the risk of all grant 

applicants and grantees to identify any high-risk grantees that 

may require additional controls or corrective actions. In fact, OJP 

actually exceeds the 10 percent statutory goal for conducting extenVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:24 Jun 22, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\25547.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

sive monitoring of grant dollars, and less than 1 percent of grants 

are currently considered as high risk. 

To supplement its internal efforts, OJP relies on the Office of the 

Inspector General. Independent audits of grantees and review of 

OJP grant management, like those conducted by the Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office, which are here 

with us this afternoon, have aided the office in making improvements to its management processes. 

While the both the IG and GAO—that is a lot of acronyms 

there—have singled out specific grant programs for concern in recent years, OJP has acted in good faith to implement corrective recommendations and close out those cases. As a result of IG recommendations, OJP has taken significant steps to change its policies and procedures, clarify or issue guidance, put in place performance control, and remedy unallowable costs. 

For example, OJP has requested Treasury send a collection notice to recruit unsupported expenditures from one grantee and has 

offered individualized technical assistance to all grantees under the 

DNA Backlog Reduction Program as it works to update its program 

guidance. 

In 2012, GAO found that DOJ needed to put into place better 

controls to reduce the risk of duplication of grant awards, including 

OJP grants. As a result, DOJ granting agencies now coordinate 

with one another to ensure that grantees are not unnecessarily receiving duplicative awards. 

OJP’s improvements to its grant management controls over the 

past decade have been welcomed by grant applicants and recipients. For example, OJP created the Office of Audit Assessment and 

Management in fiscal year 2007 to conduct audits of OJP processes 

and risk assessments of grant programs, oversee program monitoring, and create policies to improve OJP grant management. 

Since then, applicants report experiencing better communication 

of the grant peer review process, receiving a more transparent and 

timely review of the strengths or weaknesses of the grant proposal, 

and have frequent communication about grant requirements and 

policy changes. These changes make OJP—and OJP are lowering 

the risk to taxpayers. But there is always room for improvement. 

It is essential for OJP to continuously evaluate its programs with 

the IG and with GAO for lessons learned and to identify ways to 

improve its oversight and monitoring of grant programs to ensure 

that funding is effectively and efficiently used by grant recipients. 

I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses about their observations and suggestions for assisting OJP and this subcommittee 

in conducting robust oversight of these grant dollars, which are 

vital to our State and local partners. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the ranking member for her comments 

and well thought out delivery. 

And so, as I enter into this, I just want to thank all of you for 

coming. I will hold the record open for 5 legislative days for any 

Member who would like to submit a written statement. 

Mr. MEADOWS. We will now recognize our panel of witnesses. 

Pleased to welcome the Honorable Michael Horowitz—welcome 

back—Inspector General of the Department of Justice. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

Ms. Beth McGarry, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

of the Office of Justice Programs at the Department of Justice. 

Welcome. 

Ms. Gretta Goodwin, a Ph.D., Acting Director of Justice and Law 

Enforcement Issues on the Homeland Security and Justice team at 

the Government Accountability Office. Welcome. 

And Mr. Jeffrey Sedgwick, Ph.D., Executive Director of the Justice Research and Statistics Association. 

Welcome to you all, and pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in before they testify. So if you would please 

rise and raise your right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are 

about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth? 

[Response.] 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you. 

Let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

And in order to allow time for discussion, please limit your oral 

testimony to 5 minutes. However, your entire written statement 

will be made part of the record. 

And so, Mr. Horowitz, I recognize you for 5 minutes. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL E. HOROWITZ 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Plaskett, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me 

to testify today. 

From fiscal year 2011 through fiscal year 2015, OJP awarded over $10 billion in grants to thousands of recipients. During that 

same time period, the OIG issued approximately 100 audits of OJP 

grant awards, containing about 700 recommendations and identifying approximately $100 million in dollar-related findings. 

In fiscal year 2015 and 2016, Congress additionally authorized 

the department to issue over $5 billion in Crime Victims Fund 

awards, with the vast majority likely to be OJP grants. This significant increase in CVF grants requires OJP to have sufficient 

controls and oversight in place to ensure that those funds are used 

appropriately. We are currently conducting a risk assessment of 

OJP’s management of CVF grants in light of this funding increase, 

and we’re also auditing CVF grantees and subgrantees’ use of these 

funds. 

Over the past several years, OJP and the department have made 

positive strides in improving their grants management, including 

implementing online grants management training, enhancing its 

management of high-risk grantees, and consolidating grant rules 

promulgated—that had been promulgated separately by three DOJ 

grantmaking agencies into a consolidated department grants financial guide. 

While these advances are encouraging, protecting taxpayer funds 

from mismanagement and misuse remains one of the most significant challenges facing the department. The department must undertake robust efforts to ensure that the billions it gives out in 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

grants are appropriately spent and that the public receives the expected return on its investment. 

Our past work has identified several instances where the department grant monitoring was too limited and where site visits were 

too few. In particular, we found breakdowns in monitoring subgrantees to ensure that they are fulfilling all grant conditions. It’s 

also important for the department to develop a results-oriented 

performance measures approach to ensure the grant programs are 

meeting their intended goals and producing a measurable outcome. 

Such measures are critical for the department to effectively assess which grant program should receive valuable taxpayer funds. 

In addition to our audit work, the OIG conducts grant-related investigations into possible fraud, embezzlement, and conflicts of interest. In the past 5 fiscal years, those investigations resulted in 

13 criminal convictions and more than $6 million in restitution and 

recoveries. 

Our office participates in other efforts to improve grant management and reduce fraud across the Federal Government. I chair the 

Grant Fraud Working Group of the Financial Fraud Enforcement 

Task Force, a diverse coalition of IG offices and executive branch 

agencies. The working group looks to improve our ability to investigate and prosecute grant fraud matters. It played a key role in 

developing grant fraud training for special agents, Government 

prosecutors, and auditors. The working group also serves as an information-sharing platform regarding best practices and our ongoing data analytics efforts. 

In concluding, I want to thank the committee for its support, bipartisan support of the IG Empowerment Act. The bill contains 

several important provisions that will assist Inspectors General in 

conducting effective oversight, including of grant awards. 

For example, the bill ensures that IGs will have timely and 

unimpeded access to agency and grant recipient records. It allows 

OIGs to match data across agencies to help uncover improper payments and wasteful spending, which will improve our ability to detect grant fraud and uncover duplicative grant awards, and it provides OIGs with the testimonial subpoena authority, which will be 

a particularly helpful tool in enabling IGs to gain critical evidence 

when conducting civil and administrative grant fraud investigations. 

I very much appreciate the House of Representatives passing the 

legislation, and I hope that the Senate will take action soon so that 

all Inspectors General are able to conduct their important work effectively. 

Thank you, and I look forward to answering any questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Horowitz follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 25547.001
7 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 25547.002
8 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 25547.003
9 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 25547.004
10 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 25547.005
11 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 25547.006
12 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 25547.007
13 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Horowitz, and I want to thank 

you for your continuing work. As you know, the Inspectors General 

provide a critical role in a number of scenarios, and it is always 

good to have you before this committee. 

Ms. McGarry, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF BETH MCGARRY 

Ms. MCGARRY. Thank you, Chairman Meadows, and thank you, 

Congresswoman Plaskett and distinguished members of the committee. 

I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the Office of 

Justice Programs’ commitment to rigorous oversight of its grants 

program and our collaboration with the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General and the Government Accountability 

Office. These collaborations strengthen and support OJP’s grant 

oversight process. 

I am Beth McGarry, the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney 

General for OJP. Prior to my service in this position, I was an Assistant United States Attorney and a career Deputy Assistant Attorney General at OJP. 

Every day across the country, OJP grantees do amazing work, 

preventing and controlling crime, administering justice, and assisting crime victims. For example, two of our justice reinvestment initiative States, Georgia and North Carolina, have both reduced their 

prison populations and reinvested the cost savings to add community probation and parole officers and intervention and treatment 

programs. 

We are honored to call the recipients of these 7,000 grants partners, and we take very seriously our responsibility to be vigilant 

stewards of taxpayer dollars as we manage the public funds behind 

these grants. 

Key to these efforts is OJP’s Office of Audit Assessment and 

Management, which was stood up in 2007. OAAM establishes a 

stronger oversight structure for OJP’s multi-billion dollar grant 

programs. With congressional support and through OAAM’s leadership, OJP has implemented a robust framework of oversight across 

its grants programs. 

Congress also requires OJP to conduct comprehensive monitoring 

of not less than 10 percent of total award dollars. Demonstrating 

its commitment to this requirement, OJP consistently exceeds this 

10 percent level each fiscal year. In fiscal year 2015, OJP monitored 20 percent of award dollars, completing in-depth programmatic and financial monitoring twice the amount required by 

law. 

Given the magnitude of the oversight required, it is essential 

that we focus monitoring efforts on grants where there is the most 

risk to Federal resources. To accomplish this, OJP uses a riskbased assessment and analytic approach to oversight. This approach entails analyzing myriad criteria during both the grant application and post award phases. 

In addition, OJP developed rigorous monitoring standards and 

procedures to ensure that grant awards are assessed, the information collected is analyzed, and determinations made regarding the 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
14 

grantees’ performance on all programmatic, financial, and administrative requirements of award. 

OJP recognizes that we must consider potential risk before individual grants are awarded. Last year, OJP implemented an enhanced pre-award risk process. Based on this analysis, OJP’s program offices implemented actions to manage or mitigate and identify potential risks to the Government by requiring increased oversight and financial training. 

Once awarded, OJP assesses grants against more than two dozen 

risk factors and determines the appropriate monitoring plan. At a 

minimum, each grant award undergoes a desk review once a year. 

Informed by the annual desk reviews and quarterly risk-based assessment, OJP conducts in-depth programmatic and financial monitoring of selected grantees. 

We are honored that the Association of Government Accountants 

cited OJP’s model as a best practice and that other Federal agencies and the OIG have requested OJP’s assistance to replicate our 

risk-based model. For grants recipients deemed high risk, OJP provides extensive monitoring and in many cases intensive technical 

assistance. When warranted, we freeze grantee funds or refer the 

grantee for investigation by the OIG. 

The OIG is a critical part of the Federal oversight framework. 

OJP works as a liaison between the OIG and the grant recipient 

to ensure that the findings identified in the OIG audit reports are 

corrected properly. OJP also uses the audit reports to strength our 

internal controls and grant monitoring. 

Also we work with the GAO to strengthen our programs. Preventing wasteful duplication in Government programs is a critical 

priority for DOJ and OJP. The department’s three grantmaking 

components collaborate closely on the development and implementation of grant programs. Each year, the grant programs conduct 

an assessment to determine the risk of overlap. Through this collaboration, we ensure that our tribal grants are not duplicate but 

support complementary justice purposes. 

OJP values transparency in our grant operations. We have a dynamic Web site, where we post all of our solicitations, grant 

awards, the DOJ financial guide, and grant information. 

I look forward to working with the subcommittee to ensure that 

our programs and activities meet the high standards that you expect of us and that the American people deserve. Thank you again 

for this opportunity, and I look forward to your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. McGarry follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
15 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 25547.008
16 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 25547.009
17 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 25547.010
18 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 25547.011
19 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 25547.012
20 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you so much for your testimony, and 

thank you for your service. 

Ms. Goodwin, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF GRETTA GOODWIN 

Ms. GOODWIN. Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Plaskett, I 

am pleased to be here today to discuss GAO’s work examining the 

Department of Justice’s grant program practices. 

Grants are an important tool the Federal Government uses to 

provide program funding to State and local governments. In fiscal 

year 2016, it is expected that the Federal Government will provide 

States and localities more than $650 billion in grants to fund a 

wide range of public policies, some related to criminal justice. 

DOJ has three granting agencies, which provide grants that support victims assistance, technology and forensics, juvenile justice, 

mental illness and substance abuse, policing, and other activities. 

My testimony today summarizes the progress DOJ and its largest 

granting agency, the Office of Justice Programs, or OJP, have made 

in addressing 17 recommendations from earlier GAO studies. 

I will highlight our key findings and the agency’s efforts to address them in the following three areas—DOJ’s overall grant administration practices, OJP’s management of the Bulletproof Vest 

Partnership Program, and OJP’s management of the Victims of 

Child Abuse Act grant program, or VOCA. 

With respect to DOJ’s overall grant management, in 2012, we examined the extent to which overlap existed across DOJ grant programs and whether that contributed to the risk of unnecessary duplication, whether DOJ had taken steps to reduce overlap and the 

potential for unnecessary duplication, and how DOJ used monitoring and assessment to determine grant program effectiveness, as 

well as how it used the results to enhance its grant programs. 

We found that DOJ had not assessed its grant programs to identify overlap, nor had DOJ routinely coordinated grant awards to 

avoid unnecessary duplication. We also reported that DOJ could 

take steps to better assess the results of its grant programs. 

We made eight recommendations to DOJ to enhance its overall 

grant administration practices. DOJ has implemented seven and is 

making progress on the final recommendation related to codifying 

new policies and procedures. 

We also assessed how well OJP managed its Bulletproof Vest 

Partnership Program, which I’m going to refer now as the body 

armor program. In 2012, we examined the efforts OJP had underway to support State and local law enforcement’s use of body 

armor, the extent to which there were controls in place to manage 

and coordinate these efforts, as well as factors related to body armor’s use and effectiveness and the steps OJP had taken to address them. 

We found that OJP could enhance grant management controls 

and better ensure consistency in its program requirements by improving grantee accountability, reducing the risk of grantee noncompliance, and ensuring consistency in its efforts to promote law 

enforcement officer safety. 

We made five recommendations to OJP to address each of these 

areas. OJP has implemented all five. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
21 

Finally, in our assessment of OJP’s management of VOCA 

grants, in 2015 we reported on the extent to which OJP had ensured the timely expenditures of VOCA grant funding and assessed 

the performance of VOCA grantees. We found that OJP had several 

administrative review and approval processes in place that contributed to delays in grantees’ ability to begin spending their award 

funds. 

We also found that OJP did not have complete data to assess 

VOCA grantees’ performance against the measures it had established. We made four recommendations to OJP, and as of this July, 

one has been implemented. OJP is making progress on the three 

remaining recommendations, which relate to examining its administrative processes and project length and establishing and enforcing clear program requirements. 

As you know, GAO annually conducts recommendation follow-up. 

So we will continue to monitor the implementation of our recommendations to DOJ and OJP. 

Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Plaskett, and members of 

the subcommittee, this concludes my remarks. I’m happy to answer 

any questions you have. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Goodwin follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
22 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 25547.013
23 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 25547.014
24 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 25547.015
25 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 25547.016
26 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 25547.017
27 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 25547.018
28 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 25547.019
29 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 25547.020
30 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 25547.021
31 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 25547.022
32 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 25547.023
33 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 25547.024
34 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 25547.025
35 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 25547.026
36 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 25547.027
37 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 25547.028
38 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 25547.029
39 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 25547.030
40 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 25547.031
41 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 25547.032
42 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 25547.033
43 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 25547.034
44 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you for your testimony, and thank you for 

your service. 

Mr. Sedgwick? 

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY SEDGWICK, PH.D. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Plaskett, 

and members of the committee, I’m pleased to have the opportunity 

to speak with you today about the Department of Justice’s progress 

in improving the operations and management of the Office of Justice Programs. 

I say progress because, as you know from my resume, I’ve intermittently worked in the Office of Justice Programs and its predecessor—the Office of Justice Assistance, Research, and Statistics— 

since 1984. Currently, I serve as the Executive Director of the Justice Research and Statistics Association, a national nonprofit association of analysts, researchers, and practitioners throughout the 

justice system dedicated to providing accurate and timely information in support of sound policy development. 

Created by the State Statistical Analysis Centers in 1974, JRSA 

works closely with the Bureau of Justice Statistics and other Federal agencies to promote the effective use of criminal and juvenile 

justice information. 

I have the somewhat unique perspective of having worked within 

OJP to strengthen its management and then, after a lapse of 6 

years away from OJP, coming back to view it from the outside as 

head of an organization that performs a significant amount of research, training, and technical assistance supported by OJP grants. 

That permits me to comment from my present position on whether 

the management improvements initiated 8 years ago have persisted and perhaps been extended, judging, of course, from the perspective of an outside observer. 

Members of this committee may remember the management 

challenges confronting OJP 8 years ago. Significant numbers of expired grants that had not been closed out, with unexpended funds 

reverted to the Treasury, questions about the integrity of the 

grantmaking process and whether or not awards were properly reflective of peer reviewers’ scores of competing proposals, concern 

over whether grants and contracts were properly monitored and 

audited to assure performance and uphold OJP’s fiduciary responsibility to the American taxpayer, and the lack of clean financial audits for OJP. 

Upon my departure in January 2009, OJP had a clean financial 

audit. The backlog of expired, but unclosed grants was eliminated 

with all de-obligated funds properly reverted to the Treasury. A 

process was instituted that assured any deviation from peer reviewer scores in awarding grants were clearly documented and justified by reference to publicly announced criteria, and the Office of 

Audit Assessment and Management was stood up, fully staffed, 

and headed by an exceptionally talented and qualified leader. 

Six years later, I returned to Washington to assume my current 

position, giving me an opportunity to see OJP management from 

the outside rather than the inside. I’d like to share with you my 

observations and the inferences I draw from them about the trajectory of management in OJP. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
45 

First, I notice a number of new features of the grantmaking process which I heartily applaud. OJP now posts on its Web site a 

funding resource center listing all upcoming, current, and closed 

opportunities. This allows associations like mine to plan ahead, assemble good teams, and write excellent proposals to perform needed work on behalf of OJP bureaus. 

I also notice that there is a considerable degree of uniformity 

across solicitations issued by OJP bureaus with common performance and reporting requirements, common scoring criteria for proposals, and a common set of statutory and financial management 

requirements. Equally pleasing to me is the longer window of time 

between the issuance of a solicitation and the deadline for proposal 

submission. Short deadlines disadvantage newer and smaller organizations that often have the most innovative ideas. 

And I’ve noticed that OJP now routinely returns to each applicant, successful or not, the peer reviewer’s comments on his or her 

proposal. In the past, applicants had to request peer reviewer’s 

comments, and they were often delayed as bureau staff edited 

those comments. 

In fairness, any organization that takes the time to write a grant 

application deserves prompt and complete feedback on their proposal so they have the opportunity to improve. 

All of these changes encourage more applicants to apply and increase the chance that taxpayer dollars will go to those with the 

most innovative ideas and the strongest subject matter expertise on 

their teams, a sign of good management. 

Supporting these improvements in the application process is a 

much more detailed and accessible grants management system 

with an extensive online training tool providing step-by-step guidance for meeting the OJP-specified reporting requirements and 

making necessary adjustments to projects as they unfold through 

the submission of grant adjustment notices. 

The detailed online training offered to every grantee at a time of 

their convenience is an enormous aid to grantees with everything 

spelled clearly out through step-by-step instructions. Again, a sign 

of good management. 

And finally, I’d like to comment on a small change, but one that 

says a great deal about the integrity of the current grantmaking 

process in OJP. Since my return to Washington, I’ve noticed something new. Bureau heads and program managers will not meet 

with the head of an organization while a solicitation is open to 

which the organization may respond with a proposal. 

Every applicant plays on a level playing field whether they hover 

on downtown, the beltway, or the heartland. No preferential treatment, no insider access during proposal writing. Again, a sign of 

good management. 

As I commented at the beginning, I’m no longer in a position 

where I can knowledgeably comment on the specific management 

practices currently deployed in OJP, but I can make inferences 

from what I observe as one who does business with OJP on a now 

regular basis. My inference from what I have witnessed these past 

18 months is that the trajectory of management improvement that 

I testified to previously in this chamber in September 2008 conVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:24 Jun 22, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\25547.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
46 

tinues, and I applaud those responsible for carrying on in OJP a 

culture of continuous improvement. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Sedgwick follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
47 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 25547.035
48 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 25547.036
49 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 25547.037
50 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 25547.038
51 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you so much for your testimony. 

Thank each of you for your testimony, and I am going to recognize the vice chair of the Subcommittee on Government Operations, 

the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Walberg, for an opening statement. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for 

holding this hearing about how we can bring much-needed transparency and accountability to the Federal grantmaking process. 

This is a bipartisan issue, which is why earlier this year, we 

passed my bill, the GONE Act, requiring Federal agencies to take 

action to identify thousands of expired grant accounts, which are 

costing the taxpayers millions of dollars. 

I am pleased that legislation was signed into law, and that took 

a step in the right direction toward responsibly managing our 

grant accounts and eliminating wasteful spending. However, this 

process and in this hearing process more work needs to be done to 

make sure agencies are appropriately monitoring and managing 

their grant accounts. 

These grants open opportunities and provide important resources 

to law enforcement and our communities. So we have a duty to ensure these funds aren’t being wasted and taking away opportunities from other potential recipients. 

So, again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hearing, you holding 

it even as others are leaving, and we have an opportunity to finish 

some work that is good work. 

Thanks much. I yield back. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, I thank the gentleman from Michigan and 

the ranking member for hanging with me on a fly-out day. You can 

normally smell the jet fumes shortly on leaving, and so I understand that you both may have other places to be, but we really appreciate you being here. 

So let me—I am going to recognize myself for 5 minutes for a series of questions. Before I do that, I want to thank the staff. You 

know, so many times, we ask questions, we look at things, and 

good oversight really comes down to our staff and how well they 

do it. 

And we are about to leave for 7 weeks. They are so excited about 

that, but I want to make sure that part of the record is, is that 

we thank an incredible staff. Both on majority and minority, the 

staffs do a great job in providing this. 

Ms. McGarry, I want to come to you a little bit because we hear 

a lot of glowing success stories, and yet I am a little bit perplexed. 

We wouldn’t be here today if everything was rosy, and so I want 

you to help me understand a little bit about what I mentioned in 

my opening statement about the prisons that were opened, I guess, 

on Navajo lands. 

I want to be the first one to be very clear. I have the Eastern 

Band of the Cherokee Indians, who has enjoyed a grant by your 

group, and a justice center in my home county. I am one of the few 

Members that actually—in fact, maybe the only Member that has 

a congressional office on tribal lands, and so I enjoy an extremely 

good relationship with my Native American constituents and yet 

recognize they are a sovereign nation as well. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
52 

So this is not designed to really single this out as an entity is 

more as, hopefully, an anomaly and how we can make sure that it 

doesn’t happen again if it is as bad as what I read. And I guess, 

when did the prisons open? 

Ms. MCGARRY. Chairman Meadows, thank you for your question. 

The grant was funded in 2009, and the OJP and OIG are still 

working to resolve these audit issues. And we rely heavily on the 

OIG’s intensive, in-depth audits. And whenever issues are brought 

to our attention, we take action. 

And, in fact, in the next several weeks, members of OJP leadership are going out to the Navajo Nation to meet with the Navajo 

leaders to discuss an agreement that will satisfy the OIG’s concerns, but also meet the criminal justice needs of the Navajo Nation. 

So this audit is still—we’re still resolving the issues with the 

OIG, but we take this matter very seriously, and we look forward 

to our continuing dialogue with the IG. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, I appreciate that. So when did the prisons 

open? 

Ms. MCGARRY. Chairman Meadows, I’m going to have to get back 

to you on the exact date. I believe that the Tuba City facility 

opened last year, and the Kayenta facility is just waiting one last 

construction permit for it to open, a water cooler —— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So one of them is open, one of them is not. So the 

one that is not open, I would assume it has no inmates in it? 

Ms. MCGARRY. Not until it has the final certificate of occupancy. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So what is the monthly occupancy of the one that 

is open? 

Ms. MCGARRY. Chairman, I’m going to—I will have to get back 

to you on the exact occupancy. I know that the Navajo Nation —— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Average occupancy. I mean, plus or minus two inmates? 

Ms. MCGARRY. I can’t give you those specifics. I’ll have to get 

back to you. I know that the Navajo Nation is working closely with 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs to hire and train staffing to be fully 

operational. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Oh, so it is not operational? 

Ms. MCGARRY. I mean, it’s operational, but I mean, to be at full 

capacity. It’s—I know—I know it’s not at full capacity, but I don’t 

know the exact number. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Because the numbers I have would suggest 

that it is far from full capacity. So the one that opened up, how 

many beds does it have? 

Ms. MCGARRY. I don’t have the specifics of their —— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Horowitz, can you help illuminate some of 

those questions for me? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I believe, and I could find it, I think, here, it’s 

about 80 or so beds, if I recall correctly, 80 to 90 beds. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So the one that is open is the smaller 

of the two facilities. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Yes. And our numbers that we last received, it 

appeared that it had about 82 percent vacancy rate at the point we 

last heard about it, which was probably towards the end of last 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
53 

year, early this year. In terms of its occupancy, only 2 of the 11 

parts of the facility at that point were yet opened. 

And part of the issue being, as Ms. McGarry said and one of the 

criticisms and concerns we had, is the way the Federal Government 

has set up these facilities, the Justice Department funds construction through their grants, but the Interior Department funds the 

staffing or a portion of the staffing. And if those two agencies aren’t 

—— Mr. MEADOWS. That is a real problem. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. It is, and it was here. We found that if those two 

agencies don’t have robust dialogues with each other, a facility can 

be built that is far too big for what staffing either for its needs, as 

we thought here, but just generally, even moving away from this 

facility in particular, one that BIA can’t afford to—the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs can’t afford to staff. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, so the whole scenario ‘‘If you build it, they 

will come’’ is not necessarily true in this situation, as it relates to 

both inmates and people to actually have the facility staffed. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. That’s correct. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So—so, Ms. McGarry, and I am going to close and 

go to the ranking member here, and we will have another round 

of questions. But I guess my concern is, is as we have this—and 

I understand your statement that you are taking it seriously. 

But with the lack of specificity with regards to, you know, it is 

almost like we have this unbelievable outbreak of crime on the 

Navajo facility that we start to build these huge facilities that we 

can’t staff and we don’t have enough inmates for them, how can we 

feel good about the process of the grant being given if, one, they’re 

not finished, and we will get to $32 million of, I guess, money that 

is out there. 

I mean, do you see a real systemic problem with our process, or 

is this it just happened that somebody who was managing it on 

this particular case failed to do what they were supposed to do? 

Ms. MCGARRY. Well, Congressman, there have been two intervening laws that have increased the criminal jurisdiction for the 

Navajo Nation. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Yes, I am very aware of those. Like I say, I have 

got Native American tribes in my area, and they actually lobbied 

for some of that. But it doesn’t necessarily translate into additional 

inmates. It possibly would, but it doesn’t necessarily. 

But those two laws wouldn’t indicate that we should build a facility that is two and a half times what the grant was made for, 

would it? 

Ms. MCGARRY. In this particular case, we consulted research 

from the National Institute of Corrections about planning correctional facilities for the future, recognizing that if there’s intervening laws that greatly increase the criminal jurisdiction of a tribal community that you are to recognize that and to not build facilities that will last 20 years. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So, Mr. Horowitz, would you agree with that 

analysis? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I think it’s obviously fine and smart to plan for 

a 20-year period. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
54 

Mr. MEADOWS. Sure. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I think the issue from our standpoint was the 

building size is so disproportionate to what the current inmate population was and, frankly, still is once the prison is now open that, 

consistent with the master plan that was actually in place at the 

time at the Navajo Nation from 2007–2008, that master plan has 

proven to continue to be—look quite accurate and, in fact, that was 

a document that should have been followed. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So, so they adjusted the master plan that they 

started with. I guess you adjusted it after the laws were passed, 

thinking that it was going to change. 

Ms. MCGARRY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. And you do see that was an error at this 

point? 

Ms. MCGARRY. We’re still working through these issues with the 

IG. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Well, I will come back because I see it has 

a major error, and if that is going to be your testimony, we have 

got a little bit deeper dive to go into. You know, it is one thing to 

make a mistake. It is another to ignore a mistake and not admit 

that you have it. And I guess if your statement is, is that you think 

that the jury is still out on this, we will come back to that. 

I am going to recognize the ranking member for a gracious 9 

minutes if she needs it. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you. 

I want to thank you all for being here today and for the information that you are sharing with us. 

Ms. McGarry, I know that OJP has experienced some of those 

challenges that we are here talking about, and I understand and 

it appears from the testimony that improvement in your management processes are taking place. Can you verify the amount of closures in fiscal year 2015 of the amount of single audits and IG 

audit reports that were done? 

Ms. MCGARRY. Thank you, Ranking Member Plaskett, for your 

question. 

On those specific examples, I will have—the numbers, I will have 

to get back to you. But —— 

Ms. PLASKETT. I have a listing of 208 single audits and 23 IG 

audit reports, which means the closure and implementation of 620 

recommendations. 

Ms. MCGARRY. Yes. I recall that that is our figure for last year. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay, Mr. Horowitz, it is good to see you again. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Good to see you. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And although I know that our staff are really 

happy for us to be gone for 7 weeks, I don’t know about the district 

staff, how they feel about, you know, us being there for 7 weeks 

now. 

Mr. MEADOWS. It is not vacation. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Right, right, right. So is it true that out of the 54 

recommendations your office made in the 6 audits being highlighted here, OJP has closed 44 and resolved 8. So leaving only two 

recommendations unresolved? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I don’t have the precise numbers with me, Congresswoman, but those numbers wouldn’t surprise me generally. I 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
55 

think that what we found is we generally work with OJP to resolve 

our recommendations when they come out, and we have found that 

with many of the recommendations that they move forward and 

have closed them. And we work with them to try and address the 

remaining audits because as—open recommendations. 

Because as Ms. Goodwin noted with GAO, we also continue to do 

regular follow-ups with OJP and make sure that that happens. 

Ms. PLASKETT. How long do those take for the closing out of 

those audits, the recommendations being implemented? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. It depends. The vast majority get closed within, 

I would say, 2 to 3 years. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Two to 3 years? Is that a small—is that quick, or 

is that long? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I think from our standpoint, we hope to close all 

recommendations out within 1 to 2 years. So once recommendations remain open for 2 years or longer, they start becoming a concern to us. And one of the things that we’ve done starting last year 

was post on our Web site all unimplemented recommendations, all 

open recommendations. 

So the public can see essentially an aging report of our open recommendations. And since we have posted that, there has been considerable follow-up in the department, including through the leadership of the Deputy AG’s office to try and move some of those to 

closure. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Do they always agree with the recommendations 

you are making and then implement them, or are there instances 

where they are like, ‘‘No, we don’t agree with you, and we are not 

going to implement that.’’ 

Mr. HOROWITZ. During my tenure in the 4 years I’ve been here 

and my understanding from my predecessor, it was rarely the case 

and it has been rarely the case where we have not agreed. The 

Navajo Nation audit is one where there are open—from our standpoint, open, unresolved recommendations. And we are continuing 

the dialogue with OJP to try and move towards a resolution process. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. And Dr. Goodwin, I know that the GAO reports, they are not audits. But is it true that DOJ has implemented 

about 13 of the 17 recommendations your agency has made to DOJ 

regarding department-wide and OJP-specific grant administration? 

Ms. GOODWIN. Yes. That’s correct. The report we issued in 2012, 

that had eight recommendations, and as of this July, they’ve closed 

seven. There is one, the final one they are in the process of getting 

us the documentation so we can—we hope to close that out soon. 

But we don’t close anything out until we’ve done our own review. 

Ms. PLASKETT. So every year, approximately how many audits or 

recommendation—reports do you do for OJP? 

Ms. GOODWIN. I don’t have the exact numbers on that, but we 

are continuously, you know, being asked to look at OJP programs. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. 

Ms. GOODWIN. So it’s quite a few. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And since I get a little more time, the audit of the 

DNA Backlog Reduction Program, I was hoping to discuss that one. 

According to the IG’s office, OJP requested that this audit be done 

to better ascertain the extent to which grantees were accurately reVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:24 Jun 22, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\25547.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
56 

porting and using program income as well as how the National Institute of Justice could better manage the program. 

Ms. McGarry, is that an accurate representation of how the audit 

and why the audit was initiated? 

Ms. MCGARRY. Yes, Congresswoman. And this is a great example 

of our collaborative working relationship with the OIG. We looked 

at the program income of the DNA grant program and saw that we 

thought there were issues and that we would rely on the expertise 

of the IG, who has forensic auditors that we don’t have to come in 

and help us examine this issue. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Great. I think that shows that, you know, OJP is 

being proactive in terms of its own management and oversight of 

its programs, and the audit produced valuable results. Although it 

only looked at a narrow sample of four grantees, it found that NIJ 

could do a better job of identifying grantees with the potential for 

generating program income and working to ensure that grantees 

understood how to calculate income and use it appropriately. 

And I think that is important because too often we leap to the 

conclusion that individuals who are not fulfilling the requirements 

are doing so because they are seeking to break the law, as opposed 

to it being individual and grantees simply not understanding the 

requirements that are put on them by taking the grant. 

Would you say that that is correct in some instances? 

Ms. MCGARRY. I would say that that is correct, and in fact, as 

a follow-up to the OIG’s review, our Office of Audit Assessment and 

Management is doing a comprehensive program assessment of program income, and we’ve already put instructions into the solicitation to applicants to clearly provide that guidance that they need. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Well, I am going to ask you, for my own purposes, 

for my own district, I know that the Virgin Islands has had a very 

difficult time with OJP and with the kinds of grants that they have 

been given, fulfilling it in the audits that they have, and it has 

really held up them moving forward and being able to provide assistance to the people of the Virgin Islands. 

And I understand that there has been quite a bit of discussion 

within our local agencies that have management and oversight over 

that to be able to get beyond what was in the past. Everyone has 

said that it had a lot to do with the technical support really providing the kind of compliance and management that they needed 

to have to fulfill the requirements of those grants. 

Do you find that you have resources and individuals who follow 

the grant from the beginning to the end? Because I think that one 

of the problems we have seen in the Virgin Islands is, is that they 

want to do the right thing. They have been audited, but the auditors change. And so they have a new person who then has to go 

and review all of that all over again. 

What are you doing regarding that? 

Ms. MCGARRY. For the Virgin Islands, we work closely with the 

IG. The recommendations came out of an IG audit, and that’s 

where the role of the Office of Audit Assessment and Management, 

they provide that consultation and close work with the staff in the 

Virgin Islands, and they have made great progress over the last 

year resolving their issues. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
57 

And then we work as the liaison between the Virgin Islands public safety staff and the IG to resolve and close those recommendations. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. You are such a 

great guy. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, you are very kind. Can you write that down 

for me? No. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. PLASKETT. It is on the record. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Oh, thank you. Thank you. 

I recognize the gentleman from Michigan, the vice chair of the 

Subcommittee on Government Operations, Mr. Walberg. 

Mr. WALBERG. Great guy, yes. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WALBERG. Two hours ago, my wife texted me a picture of her 

holding our new 10-month-old granddaughter in her arms that she 

met at the airport in Detroit, and she is spoiling her right now 

while I am in this meeting. And so we will vote that later, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. Horowitz, good to see you again. You discussed in your testimony the importance of monitoring grants to ensure that recipients 

fulfill whatever obligations or conditions they agreed to in the first 

place. Could you expand on it a little bit more how that takes 

place? Give us a sense of what your work has shown you about 

OJP’s monitoring of grantees and their projects. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Thank you, Congressman. 

What we have seen is, is as a general matter, OJP doing a fine 

job in ensuring that the reports they get back demonstrate the 

money that was distributed was used, generally speaking, for the 

purpose of the grant. The problems we find are when we go out and 

learn that those reports aren’t necessarily accurate that are coming 

back, and we find problems behind the reporting. 

But what we’re finding isn’t done systemically at a level I think 

should be done is reporting back on performance measures, on not 

just is the money being used for the purpose it was sent, but what’s 

the result of that investment by the Government and the taxpayers 

in the program? 

The example I like to cite to was a program where OJP gave 

out—and this is a few years ago now, but I think the example is 

still relevant—monies to two local police departments to buy 

drones. 

Mr. WALBERG. Buy drones? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Buy drones. 

Mr. WALBERG. Okay. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. And in fact, the drones were purchased. No issue 

about a misuse of funds. They bought the drones. The problem was 

the two departments had not gotten the FAA certificates and other 

regulatory approvals they needed to actually use the drones. 

And so when we went out, we determined that, yes, they used 

the funds per the grant. There was nothing improper about their 

use of the funds. But from a taxpayer standpoint, the drones never 

flew. They were never used. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
58 

And so an investment had been made by the taxpayers, used by 

the local police as required, but after the fact, they could never get 

them out. 

Mr. WALBERG. No outcome, yes. Okay. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. And that’s an example of the kind of measurement you really want to get to. You want to get past was there a 

fraud or a misuse to, hopefully, there isn’t, and then what was the 

value in return. 

Mr. WALBERG. I guess, following up, Ms. McGarry, do you believe 

that OJP is adequately monitoring these grants? We have just 

heard this testimony. Do you see additional layers in your monitoring process that you can add? 

Ms. MCGARRY. Thank you for the question. 

We’re very committed to improving our monitoring process, and 

each year, we evaluate the recommendations from the OIG and the 

GAO to make those changes. And in fact, we are focusing very 

closely on measuring the success of our grants to ensure accountability of results. 

The Office of Audit Assessment and Management has stood up 

a business process improvement to look OJP wide through all the 

grant components to assess their performance measures and the 

progress reporting, and they’re in the process—the business process 

improvement team is in the process of making recommendations. 

And we hope to implement to make our monitoring of performance 

more robust. 

Mr. WALBERG. Give me an idea of what, at least as far as the 

draft so far of these proposals, what are some of those? 

Ms. MCGARRY. I have not seen the draft recommendations. I 

think they’re still being developed. But I’m happy to get—to come 

back to the committee and share those recommendations when we 

receive them. 

Mr. WALBERG. I would assume it would be in the field seeing exactly if the drone is flying, for instance, if the license hangs on the 

wall? 

Ms. MCGARRY. Oh, we have made absolutely specific changes 

around the purchase of drones. Now we put in standards and procedures in place immediately after receiving that report several 

years ago, and no law enforcement agency can purchase an unarmed aerial system without direct approval from the BJA director, 

and it must be accompanied by an FAA certification for operation. 

Mr. WALBERG. Okay. I yield back. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman, and I hope he makes it 

very quickly to hold that 10-month-old grandbaby. So we are going 

to do a second round as time permits here, and so I will recognize 

myself. 

So let me follow up just a little bit on some of the other information that we had because Mr. Sedgwick was talking about the 

progress that we have made and how from an outsider’s point of 

view and from an insider’s point of view we have seen some real 

progress. And so as I looked at that, you were nodding, and I was 

seeing that smile on your face that we can all applaud. 

One of the concerns that continues to keep coming up in this, 

this particular testimony is that you keep referring to the audit 

that the IG does. And as much as an audit is appreciated and as 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
59 

much as I rely on those, and Mr. Horowitz can tell you that I comb 

over them with great detail. And so as much as we start to rely 

on that, my concern really gets in terms of the internal controls, 

the ones that Mr. Sedgwick was talking about that we made great 

progress. In terms of performance, a performance matrix and saying, okay, we made the right decision and these are the right 

things that have happened, do you have that in place, and is that 

significant? 

And I guess what I would like to say is in a perfect world, those 

performance matrix on what is there and what needs to be there, 

maybe to have you, Ms. McGarry, tell me what is there, and then 

Ms. Goodwin and Mr. Horowitz comment on what you would like 

to see. So I will start with you. 

Ms. MCGARRY. Chairman Meadows, we have, as you heard, put 

many agency-wide standards, procedures, and internal controls to 

prevent and catch any problems, and we look at the continuum of 

the grant process. As I said, we’ve put in pre-award risk analysis 

to try to prevent problems, require financial training for new grantees that often are the ones that have trouble following the rules. 

We also have programmatic monitoring with recommendations. 

And the Office of Audit Assessment and Management follows up on 

all those recommendations. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And I guess I understand that, but that is not 

qualitative necessarily. You know, that is, again, it can be just a 

check of the box. We have checked with the going out, and they 

said, you know, we have got the drones, and we are working on it. 

What I am looking for is something that is more qualitative and 

quantitative perhaps in its measuring where you can, for lack of a 

better word, you can get a score that it is a 9.2 on compliance, and 

I don’t expect that. But something that is—so do you see my point? 

Ms. MCGARRY. Absolutely. And that is a very good question, and 

we have begun to make those changes. In our in-depth programmatic and financial monitoring, we are requiring on our review to look at source documentation and not just take the word 

on a report, but to dig down and look at the source documentation 

and do that verification. 

This year, the Office of Audit Assessment and Management is 

setting up a quality review process to also dig in on these internal 

monitoring to make sure that, indeed, what is being reported is 

true from the grantees. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. Ms. Goodwin, what would you look to 

see from a GAO perspective? 

Ms. GOODWIN. I’ll speak to the VOCA grant funds that we looked 

at. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

Ms. GOODWIN. And of those recommendations, three are still 

open. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

Ms. GOODWIN. And so if we think about one of the recommendations we made has to do with the 12-month project period length 

and some of the difficulties and challenges the grantees were having in kind of just getting their awards and starting to engage in 

those activities. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
60 

So before a grantee can actually get the award, they have to be— 

OJP does this review process that takes about 2 months. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

Ms. GOODWIN. And so that’s 2 months of the 12 year—I’m sorry, 

of the 12 months that a grantee has to kind of engage in their activities. 

So when I mentioned that it was delaying a grantee’s ability to 

kind of get their funds and then start engaging in those activities, 

the internal—the internal stuff that needs to happen at OJP is affecting a grantee’s ability to really engage and do activities related 

to their grant funds. Since it’s a 12-month period, 2 months are already gone. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So what you are saying—so what you are saying 

is the delay at OJP in terms of decisions that are made cuts into 

their 12-month window of deploying that grant? 

Ms. GOODWIN. Exactly. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. And you would agree with that, Mr. Sedgwick, from an outsider. Now I know you get grants. So I know you 

are going to be cautious on how you respond to this. You know, I 

found the ironic nature of somebody witnessing on somebody who 

is making the decision, but go ahead. 

Can you hit your mic? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Yeah, I actually coincidentally just finished writing my last grant proposal this cycle on Monday night at 11:59 

p.m. So a lot of this is fresh in my mind. 

There are, for example, in the proposal I just completed, pretty 

clearly the first 4 months of a 2-year grant are going to be spent 

not actually working on the grant, but actually kind of getting in 

place all of the agreements and all of the clearances and so on. 

Mr. MEADOWS. To make sure she is happy? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Yes. Now I will say one of the things in this proposal that I think speaks to the issue you’re raising because I think 

the way I would phrase what you’re asking a question about is it’s 

one thing to ask people for outputs. It’s another thing to ask them 

for outcomes, and I’d push it even further and then say, and what 

are the impacts? 

That is, you know, the output, presumably, affects people’s behaviors in a positive direction, and that’s an outcome. But then you 

have to ask the further question, if we improve the behavior of a 

bunch of people in the community, what’s it do for the overall 

health or wellness of the community? 

And what I particularly—I think there’s still some kind of areas 

for improvement in terms of clarifying that progression of outputs, 

which everybody is familiar with; outcomes, which people are getting more familiar with; but still the next step is the impacts. 

What I will give OJP tremendous credit on in this most recent 

proposal that I worked on that was very large was the emphasis, 

and I think this will get to the question you were raising, an emphasis on we had to link goal—a problem to a goal, to an objective, 

to a task, and then to a deliverable. And it was over and over again 

in that RFP that those deliverables had to be quantifiable. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Horowitz, what about you? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
61 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Well, I think that is a big part of it, what Mr. 

Sedgwick just mentioned, which is in the upfront, early in the process understanding what’s the outcome that we are looking to 

achieve? If it’s a grant related to reducing truancy, not measuring 

not just how many children have you put in the program, but what 

was the impact on truancy in the school, in the community? 

What measurements are you going to require the grant recipient 

to send to you? Because that’s really what is required here. What 

goes on throughout this process is the inflow of information that’s 

required of a grant recipient to OJP. That starts OAAM and other 

entities at OJP to look at that, and when they see anomalies, 

they’ll often call us. 

But it’s all because of the inflow of information that’s demanded 

or required, pursuant to the grant. So it really starts right up 

front. 

I’ll add one other part, one other issue to the discussion, which 

I think is important in that we’re looking at in our ongoing review 

of the department’s oversight of violent crime efforts that it has, 

and that is how are the three grantmaking components of the Justice Department coordinating with other law enforcement components at the Justice Department on the efforts to deliver to local 

law enforcement? Are those getting coordinated? 

Because that’s another concern we’ve had is it looks as though, 

generally—this is a general statement. But the question that we’re 

asking is, is the grantmaking that’s going out to the local—State 

and local law enforcement, which obviously is partnering with Federal law enforcement —— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

Mr. HOROWITZ.—and the FBI and DEA and ATF and Marshals, 

et cetera, is there coordination going on within the Justice Department itself over how best to deal with and serve law enforcement 

needs at the local level? And so that’s another issue. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And so you are saying that is not happening? Is 

that happening, Ms. McGarry? 

Ms. MCGARRY. Well, certainly —— 

Mr. MEADOWS. To the extent that it needs to happen. How about 

that? I will give you a qualifier. 

Ms. MCGARRY. Well, we share that goal of having coordination. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I understand that. 

Ms. MCGARRY. And we are doing it. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Is it happening or not? 

Ms. MCGARRY. Yes. In the Violence Reduction Network —— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Really? 

Ms. MCGARRY.—the grant components are working side by side 

with the DOJ law enforcement. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And so you have how it affects violent crimes and 

how it—the outcomes? So we would like to have a copy of that because I haven’t been able to find that. 

Mr. Horowitz, what am I missing? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. We’re in process of the audit. So I would probably 

be —— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you are saying that you actually have that, 

Ms. McGarry? 

Ms. MCGARRY. Through —— 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
62 

Mr. MEADOWS. Because it is like building a school and educating 

someone and not having whether they get a job or not. That is the 

analogy that I make is that if we are going to invest this kind of 

dollars and we are—whether it is drug intervention or juvenile violence or abuse or any of those, we can do a lot of great programs. 

But if it doesn’t stop what we are trying to stop, then it is just 

money that is being spent. 

It is like going to university and ending up coming back, driving 

a taxi cab because you can’t get a job because of the degree you 

get. Do you follow me? 

Ms. MCGARRY. Absolutely. And we share your goal. And as Mr. 

Sedgwick said —— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So do you have—do you have the matrix to be 

able to figure out whether we are doing that? 

Ms. MCGARRY. We’ve put the matrix in the solicitation, and our 

business process improvement work we’re doing is how can we better capture that to tell that complete story. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. So will you commit to this committee that 

in the next 120 days that you will look at what you have put in, 

what Mr. Sedgwick just had to put his grant proposal in for, in 

terms of a way for you to monitor this going forward? 

And let me—this all comes back to what we see is the Navajo 

issue. And my big concern there is, as a fiscal conservative, I get 

beat up every time I give money for grants, and I have defended 

you. I have defended Department of Justice on a number of grant 

operations as a fiscal conservative. 

But any time that we build two prisons 75 miles apart that really are not being occupied and really don’t have—unless you are 

going to ship in Federal inmates from outside the Navajo territory, 

it is going to be very hard to fill it up. I mean, I know the numbers, 

and I know what it is in my district, and you are going to be shipping in inmates to fill up something that you didn’t have to build 

and that we have got a $32 million excess. Do you see the problem? 

Ms. MCGARRY. We certainly are taking this issue seriously. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you don’t see it as a problem? 

Ms. MCGARRY. I see it as an issue that we’re still in the process 

of working with the IG and the Navajo Nation to resolve. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Here is my—and I am going to be nice. I 

want to go home, and you seem like a real nice individual. And so 

I am going to be a little bit perhaps indirect in my suggestion. 

We need within a 60-day timeframe for you to get back to this 

committee on how you are going to resolve the outstanding issues 

with the IG. And I don’t mean that ‘‘We are taking it serious, and 

we are working hard.’’ I mean a real plan on how we are going to 

get this resolved. 

Because it inherently undermines the potential for future grants 

and future funding if this is believed to be across all of your 

grantmaking capability. And here your sworn testimony today is 

this is isolated, and you are committed to getting it worked. Is that 

correct? 

Ms. MCGARRY. We are committed to resolving these issues. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And this is isolated? 

Ms. MCGARRY. In my—this is an anomaly that we are working 

through. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
63 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. I recognize the ranking member for a 

series of questions. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you. 

Dr. Sedgwick, you have done some enormous work in this area 

and have a vast amount of experience with OJP. I wanted to talk 

with you about the arduous process for applicants that has in the 

past and there has been some discussion about the lack of transparency. And if we want the best programs to apply for OJP grant 

dollars, we must have a process that is completely fair. 

Now you talked in your testimony about the improvements that 

you have seen regarding detailed online training and releasing unedited peer review comments and et cetera. You have also testified 

about that in your tenure, the Office of Audit Assessment and 

Management was created. Can you tell us why this office was created? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. I think to get at a lot of the questions that you 

all have been asking today. These are not new questions. The 

whole notion—you know, the Office of Justice Programs distributes 

a very large amount of money to law enforcement and to public 

safety in all its various manifestations in the United States. And 

there’s always questions about was that money appropriately used, 

and did it have the intended effect? 

So this is—you know, these are not new issues. These have always been there, and I think they always will be there. And so 

that’s why in my written statement, I ended with a comment about 

the importance of a culture of continuous improvement because I 

think, you know, during my tenure and my experience in OJP and 

its predecessor, OJARS, the organization has come a long way. 

But there’s always going to be challenges, in part because the nature of the problems that OJP is trying to address are constantly 

changing. I’m kind of struck by when I was in the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 1984, the only thing anybody cared about were the 

FBI index crimes. So you really worried about seven crimes. 

I’m away for 22 years. I come back to BJS in 2006, and all of 

a sudden, people are talking about Internet crimes against children 

and human trafficking and a whole set of crimes that, quite frankly, nobody even thought about in 1984. And so, you know, you’ve 

got an agency that is grappling with an ever-changing mix of what 

constitutes illegal behavior in the United States. 

At the same time that that’s going on, so it’s trying to chase a 

moving target, the bar is being raised. And I think OJP has been— 

has worked very hard at raising its own performance and moving 

along that continuum that I mentioned earlier where in the old 

days, you only monitored outputs. 

Now we’re well into the era of monitoring outcomes in terms of, 

all right, you ran this many people through your program, how did 

you move the needle? Tell me what improvement looks like, and 

how does that get measured? 

And I think now we’re on the cusp of people beginning to say, 

well, okay, if we change the behavior of X number of citizens in a 

community, what’s that do to make that community better, safer? 

We toss around the phrase ‘‘community wellness,’’ but I think 

that has to be taken very seriously. How is the community qualiVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:24 Jun 22, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\25547.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
64 

tatively improved as a result of the programs that are being funded 

by the Office of Justice Programs? 

Ms. PLASKETT. And is that what the Office of Audit Assessment 

and Management —— 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Very much was part of helping—first of all, helping applicants understand their responsibility in terms of measuring the effectiveness of what they were doing and reporting it to 

OJP. Then also helping OJP use that information that they were 

receiving from the field to say, all right, how is this particular 

grantee performing? Okay. They’ve got a great proposal, looks good, 

but is the needle moving, and how would we know, right? 

And I think that’s—you know, I think that’s a very important 

part of what the purpose of the Office of Audit Assessment and 

Management was. I can remember, I was in BJS when that agency 

actually first got authorized and stood up, and kind of taking a 

whole set of bureaus within OJP and getting them to accept the 

idea that this Office of Audit Assessment and Management was 

going to kind of get them to adopt a common set of performance 

measures was a bit of a chore. 

I mean, if you go way back to my beginning, 1984, before the reauthorization of the Justice Department, in 1984 every one of the 

bureaus in what is now OJP was by statute completely independent, except for one thing. The Assistant Attorney General had 

to approve your press releases, but everything else you could do on 

your own. 

So part of what you’re kind of looking at and the kind of challenge is overcoming a culture, now you might say that’s 32 years 

ago, but in organizations and bureaucracies, 32 years is like saying 

before lunch today, right? I mean, for us, it seems like a generation, but in organizational terms, a lot of organizations, 32 years 

is the blink of an eye. And it takes a lot of work to move a culture 

of an organization like OJP, where you have a history of autonomy 

and get people to cooperate, right, and to work together. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And you feel that it is moving that way? 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Absolutely. I don’t have any doubt at all. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay, thank you. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. The chair recognizes the vice chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Walberg. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

There was a gun buyback program, PSN—Philadelphia Safety 

Net program. And in that program, the policy was to give away 

$100 gift cards in exchange for guns. However, hundreds of the gift 

cards went missing, and the sole employee and executive director 

of PSN reportedly used grant money to pay for personal things like 

parking tickets, hotel stay, gasoline purchases, clothing, restaurants, meals, and cash withdrawals. 

And so, Ms. McGarry, did OJP know before PSN gun buyback 

program was concluded in March of 2012 that funds were being 

misspent? 

Ms. MCGARRY. Well, we’ve put several agency-wide standards 

and procedures in place to catch these type of problems. And we 

became aware of the issues, and our prevention mechanisms now 

are this grantee was an earmark and now would be put through 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
65 

the pre-award risk. And as a new grantee and as a small nonprofit 

would be required to do financing training to prevent these type of 

problems. 

Mr. WALBERG. But did you know before it was concluded that the 

misspending had taken place? 

Ms. MCGARRY. I’m not personally aware. I believe that we—our 

managers did not know the extent of the problem. 

Mr. WALBERG. Has there been any check to find out why the 

managers didn’t know that there was a problem? 

Ms. MCGARRY. Yes. And that’s part of our continuous improvement. We’ve enhanced our grant manager training. We’ve added 

questions for programmatic managers about financial when they’re 

going out, to give them checks to look more deeply into financial 

conditions of grantees. So that is part of our continuous improvement. Always learning from these irregularities and issues and 

making changes to help prevent them in the future. 

Mr. WALBERG. Feel pretty confident now that an entity like that 

with basically one sole manager of the program, executive director, 

with this much money is detected hopefully before —— 

Ms. MCGARRY. Yes. I think the measures of our pre-award risk 

assessment, intensive oversight of this type of a grantee would be— 

would be solid to detect and prevent these problems. 

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Horowitz, what was OJP’s oversight like 

throughout that program as you looked into it? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Well, we obviously saw a series of concerns there 

in the way the funds were being used, the lack of controls matching 

up, the gift cards that were given out with the firearms that were 

being purchased. In fact, there are still unaccounted for numbers 

of gift cards because there were more gift cards given out than 

there were guns collected. 

Mr. WALBERG. Guns brought in. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. One of the things particularly concerning to us 

was that the executive director of the agency received almost 

$350,000 in compensation awarded by his sister, who was the 

chairman of the board. 

So those kinds of self dealing conflicts, lack of controls over program obviously —— 

Mr. WALBERG. Would that have been expected as normal to see 

that if you saw that type of relationship, brother and sister running a program with that much money attached to it, handing out 

gift cards, over $300,000 salary? Should that have been something 

that would have been sniffed out very quickly? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. It’s certainly something that if not done quickly, 

given the lapse of time, certainly we would have hoped that at 

some point along the way that those kinds of controls that were 

lacking in a place like PSN would have been identified sooner. 

And again, part of this goes to reporting back on results. What 

were the results of this audit? Well, if the executive director is taking a third of the money or so for himself, then there is a problem 

with the program. 

Mr. WALBERG. At what point during the process would PSN have 

reported to OJP what it was spending the money on? I ask that 

of Ms. McGarry. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
66 

Ms. MCGARRY. Each grantee has to submit a quarterly financial 

report, and in that report, they would designate what the money 

was being spent for. And this is one of the improvements we’ve put 

in place is to not just rely on these reports, but to have our managers look for source documents through the process. 

Mr. WALBERG. And stay on top of it? Okay. 

Ms. MCGARRY. We’re trying. 

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman. 

This has been a good hearing. I want to just thank each of you 

for your time. We have a few ‘‘to dos’’ that are out there, and Ms. 

McGarry, I would encourage you strongly to work with Ms. Goodwin and Mr. Horowitz in terms of those measurable matrix that I 

talk about, performance standards, how we can make sure. 

You have such a kind way of coming back that it makes a guy 

like me actually have empathy for you, and I guess that is a good 

thing. So it is—but in doing that, I want to underscore the seriousness of some of this, and I would love to come and visit with your 

sub-agency and thank your workers for the job that they do. 

It is real easy when we start to focus in on these problem areas 

to suggest that everything is awful, and we didn’t hear that today 

that everything was awful. I think we heard some real things that 

concern us. And what concerns me is not just with the hard-working American taxpayer dollar that we are looking at in this $32 

million discrepancy. 

What concerns me is the long-term viability of a grant program 

that I see a real need in, that has been benefited my constituents, 

and that if we allow these kind of things to happen and continue 

to happen, that the money will go away. Because they are going 

to use the Navajo example or perhaps the buyback program example, and they are going to paint a broad brush. 

And what that means is that there will be individuals without 

protective body armor perhaps, if there were not the right amounts 

of money spent. And so to put it in perspective, and I really want 

you—we have made a commitment here to work on these two outstanding issues with Mr. Horowitz and his team, but I want to put 

it in perspective. 

When we look at increasing something 250 percent. So we went 

from the original design, we expanded it 250 percent based on a 

couple of jurisdictional areas that should not increase the inmate 

population that much. It is like building—originally setting out to 

build the Capitol, this facility, and instead building Nationals Stadium and then building Nationals Stadium again. 

So do you see why it really creates a real problem? The numbers 

are going to have to—I am going to continue to follow up, and I 

want to hear back from you, as we have suggested. 

But again, I want to thank all of you for your testimony, and if 

there is no further business before the committee, the Committee 

on Government Operations stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:41 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER