U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

47–523 PDF 2009

EXAMINING GRANTMAKING PRACTICES AT THE

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 19, 2008

Serial No. 110–123

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

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland

PETER WELCH, Vermont

——— ———

TOM DAVIS, Virginia

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

BILL SALI, Idaho

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

PHIL SCHILIRO, Chief of Staff

PHIL BARNETT, Staff Director

EARLEY GREEN, Chief Clerk

LAWRENCE HALLORAN, Minority Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on June 19, 2008 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Flores, J. Robert, Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ......................................................................................... 38

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Davis, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, prepared statement of ........................................................................ 36

Flores, J. Robert, Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, prepared statement of ................................................. 42

Waxman, Chairman Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the

State of California:

Letters dated June 11 and June 19, 2008 ............................................... 78

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6

(1)

EXAMINING GRANTMAKING PRACTICES AT

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 2008

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry A. Waxman

(chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Waxman, Cummings, Kucinich, Watson, Davis of Virginia, Platts, Duncan, Issa, Foxx, and Sali.

Also present: Representative Walz.

Staff present: Phil Barnett, staff director and chief counsel; Kristin Amerling, general counsel; Karen Lightfoot, communications director and senior policy advisor; David Rapallo, chief investigative

counsel; John Williams, deputy chief investigative counsel; David

Leviss, senior investigative counsel; Christopher Davis, professional

staff member; Earley Green, chief clerk; Jen Berenholz, deputy

clerk; Caren Auchman and Ella Hoffman, press assistants; Leneal

Scott, information systems manager; Sam Buffone, Miriam

Edelman, and Jennifer Owens, staff assistants; Ali Golden, investigator; Larry Halloran, minority staff director; Jennifer Safavian,

minority chief counsel for oversight and investigations; Keith

Ausbrook, minority general counsel; Steve Castor and Ashley

Callen, minority counsels; Larry Brady, minority senior investigator and policy advisor; Patrick Lyden; minority parliamentarian

and member services coordinator; Brian McNicoll, minority communications director; Benjamin Chance, minority professional staff

member; Ali Ahmad, minority deputy press secretary; and John

Ohly, minority staff assistant.

Chairman WAXMAN. The meeting of the committee will please

come to order.

At today’s hearing the Oversight Committee will examine the

process used by the Justice Department to award millions of dollars in grants to organizations that address national juvenile justice initiatives. These grant awards were made by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, which is headed by Administrator J. Robert Flores. Mr. Flores is here today, and I thank

him for testifying and for his cooperation with this inquiry.

This committee has held many hearings on waste, fraud, and

abuse in Federal contracting. We have also held hearings on waste,

fraud, and abuse in other types of programs such as crop insurance

and workman’s compensation insurance, but we have held few

hearings on abuses in Federal grants.

2

In 2006, the Federal Government spent $419 billion on Federal

contracts. It spent even more, $488 billion, on Federal grants, so

examination of possible waste, fraud, and abuse in grant programs

is a high priority.

My staff has prepared a supplemental memorandum for Members summarizing what we have learned from our investigation.

Last year the Justice Department held a competition to select worthy grants for funding juvenile justice programs. Over 100 applicants submitted proposals. Career staff at the Justice Department

then conducted a peer review of these applications, rating them

against criteria in the Department’s public solicitation and ranking

them according to their numerical scores.

Of the 104 proposals, the career staff ranked 18 as the bestqualified for funding. Mr. Flores largely ignored these recommendations. He did not fund the top-ranked program, did not fund the

second-highest-ranked program. In fact, he did not fund any of the

top five programs. Of the 18 organizations recommended for funding by the career staff, only 5 were awarded funds. Instead, Mr.

Flores chose to give the majority of the grant funding to five programs that his staff had not recommended for funding. One was an

abstinence-only program, two were faith-based programs, and another was a golf program. What is more, they appeared to have

special access to Mr. Flores that other applicants were denied.

Mr. Flores awarded a $1.1 million grant to the Best Friends

Foundation, an abstinence-only organization that ranked 53 out of

104 applicants.

The career staff who reviewed this particular application said it

was ‘‘poorly written,’’ ‘‘had no focus,’’ ‘‘was illogical,’’ and ‘‘made no

sense.’’ Documents provided to the committee show that, while the

grant was being developed and competed, Mr. Flores had multiple

contacts with Elayne Bennett, the founder and chairman of Best

Friends and the wife of Bill Bennett, who worked in the Reagan

and Bush administrations.

Mr. Flores also awarded a half million dollar grant to the World

Golf Foundation that ranked 47 out of the 104. Mr. Flores says

that, despite the application’s low ranking, the grant was awarded

on the merits. But the record before the committee raises questions

that need to be addressed.

We know that Mr. Flores traveled to Florida in 2006 to visit

Foundation officials and play golf. We know that Mr. Flores directed his staff to help the group with its proposal. And we know

that, before the peer review process even began, a senior career official wrote that he was certain the group would be funded because

Mr. Flores’ chief of staff had said as much.

Mr. Flores awarded a $1.2 million grant to Urban Strategies

LLC, a consulting firm, and Victory Outreach, a ‘‘church-oriented

Christian ministry called to the task of evangelizing.’’ This grant

application also received a low ranking, 44 out of 104 applications,

but the head of Urban Strategies was Lisa Cummins, who formerly

worked in the White House Office of Faith Based Initiatives. Documents provided to the committee show that Ms. Cummins had several high-level meetings with Mr. Flores and other Justice Department officials before and after receiving the grant.

3

On the other hand, the Justice Research and Statistics Association was the top-scoring group out of 104 applicants. It scored a 98,

was universally praised by career employees for its effectiveness

and good work. It provides training and technical assistance to

State juvenile corrections workers, but it was not selected or funded.

There is no question that Mr. Flores had discretion to award

grants. He is entitled to use his experience and judgment in determining which grant applications to fund. But he has an obligation

to make these decisions based on merit, facts, and fairness, and the

reasoning for his decision must be transparent and available to the

public.

Not every official the committee spoke with, including the Justice

Department peer reviewers, the Civil Service program managers,

and the career official in charge of the solicitation agreed with Mr.

Flores’ approach. In fact, nearly every one of them said his approach was neither fair nor transparent. Mr. Flores’ superior, the

Assistant Attorney General, told the committee, ‘‘I am for candor

and clarity, especially when dealing with the people’s money, and

that did not happen, and I am upset that it did not happen.’’

The only exceptions to this view are Mr. Flores, himself, and Mr.

Flores’ chief of staff, who has now asserted her fifth amendment

privilege against self-incrimination and has refused to talk about

this process.

Yesterday I received a letter from the Nation’s oldest organization devoted to fighting juvenile delinquency, the National Council

of Crime and Delinquency, and the Council wrote, ‘‘We have great

concerns about the recent decisions on grant proposals and how

these have hurt the credibility of the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention. We expended substantial time and resources in good faith to prepare proposals. Now it seems that the

review process was far from fair.’’

I hope today’s hearing can answer the question being raised by

the Council and other groups. Ultimately, the issue before the committee is whether the grant solicitation was a rigged game and

whether it has best served children across our country. Today’s

hearing will give Members a chance to examine this important

question.

The staff has prepared a memo, and the documents and transcripts it cites I would ask be made a part of the hearing record.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman WAXMAN. Yes, Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Reserving the right to object, I want to

note for the record that it was just 1 hour before the hearing today

that our staff was given a copy of this 24-page supplemental memorandum. While more information is always better than less information, the practice of withholding these lengthy memos until right

before the hearing I think is prejudicial and not really in the best

interest of our operating in a bipartisan manner.

We are supposed to be conducting thoughtful and deliberate oversight of Federal agencies and the business they conduct, and today’s hearing is not about the Department of Justice or the Office

of Juvenile Justice program; it is about a publish thrashing of a

very specific official. Far too frequently we eschew oversight of

4

agencies and instead focus on overly personal attacks on agency

heads. We have seen this with the attacks on the State Department IG, the Administrator of GSA, and the Administrator of EPA.

When the Select Committee on Katrina examined what happened

on the Gulf Coast in August 2005, we looked at the actions of the

Department of Homeland Security as an entity, not just the Secretary. We looked at the actions of FEMA as an agency, not just

Michael Brown. We examined the actions of the State of Louisiana,

not just the Governor.

Making oversight personal I think sometimes detracts from the

serious business.

Now, under the rules of the committee, Rule 2 specifically, we

are supposed to be informed 3 days in advance of the purpose of

the hearing, and in our opinion this memorandum kind of changes

that and personalizes it. But I won’t object simply because you and

I have had a discussion on this. We feel, again, more information

is better than less.

I would note, if we are going to start getting personal on some

of these issues, we should be focusing on individuals like Scott

Bloch, the head of the Office of Special Counsel. Earlier this week

I wrote to you about the new reports of Bloch forcing his employees

to publish propaganda on the Web sites of publications such as the

Washington Post and Government Executive. Over the last year we

have compiled sufficient evidence to show that Mr. Bloch should no

longer serve in this position of public trust. We have evidence he

used non-governmental e-mail to conduct official business. We have

evidence he improperly called Geeks on Call to erase computer files

that may be subject to document requests pertinent to an investigation of Bloch by the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency.

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel performs an important role,

and he has been criticized from the right and the left on this. And

just because he went after one administration official is no reason

this committee should give him protection. This committee’s duty

is to conduct meaningful oversight on the agency, which requires

immediate attention.

But I will not object to the request. I did want to put that in the

record.

Chairman WAXMAN. If I might be permitted to respond, I did

send a letter to you, Mr. Davis, on June 11, 2008, explaining this

issue of the supplemental memo. The rules require that 3 days in

advance of a hearing a memo be distributed outlining what the

hearing was all about. Supplemental memos are written by our

staff. It is often incomplete until the very last minute, and there

are other reasons, as well, that they may not be available. They are

prepared for the majority staff. We make them available to the minority, as well, which I think is appropriate.

I do take some exception to the idea that hearings are personal,

especially when you close your comments about personal hearings

by saying you want Scott Bloch investigated. Mr. Bloch, at your request, has gone through a transcribed interview, and we are taking

your letter of last week under submission and we will talk further

to you about that matter.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you.

5

Chairman WAXMAN. And I do recall many of your Members talking about how we need Sandy Berger to have his case reviewed

over and over again. We even had Members saying that we needed

Valerie Plame back here. That seems to me, if we are talking about

personal attacks or concerns, they have been expressed by Members on the Republican side of the aisle.

Now, have we engaged in investigations that are personal? I

think we have looked at investigations that are more than personal. They involve people, but they involve how those people are

doing their job and how they are spending taxpayers’ dollars.

You cited particularly the Inspector General of the State Department, who quit because his statements before us were inaccurate

and, had we pursued the matter further, it would have offered him

embarrassment.

We pursued investigations about how GSA was handling contracts and brought in the head of the GSA, and in the course of

our discussions with her and her staff found out that she was violating the Hatch Act.

So these are not personal matters except when it involves individuals and how they are handling their responsibilities.

I had never met Mr. Flores before this morning. I thanked him

and am pleased that he is here to answer our questions. This is not

about Mr. Flores; this is about the public’s funds. If this were the

Flores Foundation giving out grants to worthy recipients that Mr.

Flores determined should receive money from his foundation, no

one would ask him any questions. But Mr. Flores is the one in

charge of giving out funds that are taxpayers’ funds for very specific purposes after a peer review process by which the different potential grantees were rated.

I think we need to explore why some grantees were favored and

others not, even though there had been a ranking of what proposals met the test of merit as determined by those who were rating

them based on the merit. So I regret that we weren’t able to get

to you the memo that we have distributed today and that will now

be part of the record in advance. It would have been desirable, and

we tried to accomplish that goal, but we are not always able to, nor

are we required to under the rules.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Mr. Chairman, I will move to my opening

statement and respond during that, if that is all right.

Chairman WAXMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. I am ready with my opening statement

if you are ready.

Chairman WAXMAN. Yes.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. And I will just respond in my opening

statement.

Chairman WAXMAN. OK. We have unanimous consent and the

memo and documents will be made part of the record.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Henry A. Waxman and the

information referred to follow:]

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

Chairman WAXMAN. I would now like to recognize Mr. Davis for

his opening statement.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you.

The difficulty is the three-page document that we were given for

the purpose of this hearing. There was only one small paragraph

that mentioned Mr. Flores. This talked about grantmaking by the

Department of Justice, and it seems to me if that was the subject

of the hearing we ought to be hearing from more people. We ought

to be hearing from some of the grantees and some of the people

who thought they were grantees where they could tell their story

here on the record and the minority would have an opportunity to

question them, as well. Instead, the difficulty of the hearing is that

it is just focused on one person, not the Department of Justice

grant process.

I would also note for the record that for years Congress earmarked almost all of this agency’s discretionary funds. It was your

side, Mr. Chairman, that suspended those earmarks, and the sudden availability of tens of millions of dollars in discretionary funds

was supposed to be a boon for the agency and the juvenile justice

field. I understand that there is some concern on your side that

this was not done appropriately. That is certainly an appropriate

subject for a hearing. But for those who don’t like earmarks, this

can result.

I will never forget that I had an intermediate school in my District, Glasgow Intermediate, that met all of the criteria, scored very

high for the Department of Education under the previous administration, and got nothing out of it, and that was one of the reasons

earmarks were born with a Democratic administration and a Republican Congress, where some of our Members didn’t feel they

were getting what they should.

I think we have every right to call people up here to explain why

they give grants. I don’t dispute that at all. I just wanted to note

that this memo was by the majority staff without consultation with

the minority staff. Had we known this was going to be the entire

subject of this, I think we would have responded appropriately and

given perhaps a different perspective.

In my judgment, this isn’t a hearing about waste, fraud, or abuse

in the grant process, but I think it does open some eyes in terms

of how these are done. Mr. Flores is a big boy. I think he will be

able to answer why he made the decisions. It is, in fact, elected

leadership in departments and elected administrations that are

elected by voters to make these decisions, not just the professionals. They play a role in this, but at the end of the day they are

not held accountable at the polls.

Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, in terms of Mr. Bloch, I only singled him out because I think this has been one of the more egregious issues that our committee ought to be looking at, and I am

happy to hear that you are taking this under consideration.

There is no question that Federal grant programs are a legitimate subject of oversight. Billions of dollars are given to States,

counties, localities, private organizations every year. We ought to

know more about how grants are awarded and how the results of

those programs are measured and evaluated.

34

As I said before, I am afraid this hearing with just such a narrow

focus on one unusual cycle of purely discretionary awards by DOJ

isn’t going to add as much to our understanding of the

grantmaking procedures as I think we could have. In a typical year

the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention within

the Office of Justice Programs awards almost $600 million to

grantees. Most of that is usually allocated through block grants

and congressional earmarks, but in 2007, under a continuing funding resolution, without those earmarks DOJ officials asked for proposals, evaluated the applications, and made awards they determined met the statutory criteria set by Congress to fight juvenile

delinquency.

I think one of the issues we want to understand is how these decisions were made, but did these grants meet the statutory criteria

or didn’t they meet the statutory criteria. Within that, there is obviously a lot of discretion, and we can have a discussion of how

these are made and get some insights into how departments make

these decisions.

After designating most of the money for large national efforts, a total of $8.9 million was awarded to 10 grantees through an open

competition. As in any such process, there are winners and there

are losers. Some of the losers cried foul and called their Congressmen claiming to be victims of an arbitrary, unfair, and unlawful

evaluation and selection process. Unlike in the Federal contracting,

where you have a procedures under bid protests, there really aren’t

any for the grantmaking process, and so they understandably came

to the Hill. These people who didn’t get the grants, these groups,

base their conclusion primarily on rankings of grant proposals produced by the internal Justice Department staff review by the professional staff.

Some lower-scoring applications were funded, while those with

some of the higher ratings were not, and some allege bias or a hidden ideological agenda on the part of the selection official, who is

our only witness today.

But it appears two flawed assumptions formed the only basis for

those complaints. First, the premise that grant awards must automatically go to top-scoring applicants, that has no basis, to my

knowledge, in law and in regulation or in practice. Second, the conclusion that broad criteria set out in the solicitation cannot be refined in the award process, that would deny a decisionmaker otherwise virtually any discretion in choosing between grantees. They

have discretion, and that is what I believe the law says. We may

or may not like it, and I think, again, you have every right to probe

into how these decisions are made.

These are called discretionary grants for a reason. Under the

law, Congress intended to give executive branch officials of this or

any administration wide latitude in determining what programs

best prevent or address the multi-generational social plague that is

juvenile delinquency. The burden of proof to support a claim that

administrative action abused broad discretion is formidable. Absent

evidence of some nefarious predisposition for or against certain applicants or proof of other improper influences on the decisionmaker,

discretionary decisions will not be overturned by administrative appeals or by courts.

35

It is clear that some inside and outside the Justice Department

disagree with the decisions made by the Administrator, Mr. J. Robert Flores, but those disagreements, without more, simply replace

one set of necessarily subjective judgments with another. The final

authority to make those judgments was vested in a Senate confirmed executive branch appointee, and it was the Congress that

decided in fiscal year 2007 not to go the traditional route of funding these through earmarks.

In effect, this hearing is little more than an attempt to earmark

by oversight, to intimidate executive branch decisionmakers into

trimming their discretion to meet congressional expectations. Instead, we should be talking about the factors and approaches that

successfully combat juvenile delinquency. We should hear testimony about programs that stressed development of positive life

skills through the example of sports or other constructive activities,

and we should examine data about programs that rigorously track

the progress of their participants over a long term. We look forward

to that oversight, as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Tom Davis follows:]

36

37

38

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis.

We have with us as our witness Mr. J. Robert Flores. He is the

Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention [OJJDP], at the Department of Justice.

Mr. Flores, thank you for being here.

It is the practice of this committee that all witnesses who testify

do so under oath, so I would like to ask if you would please stand

and raise your right hand.

[Witness sworn.]

Chairman WAXMAN. The record will indicate the gentleman answered in the affirmative.

Without objection, we have Congressman Walz with us today. As

is our custom, I would ask unanimous consent that he be allowed

to participate today in the hearing.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. No objection. Welcome.

Chairman WAXMAN. Without objection, we welcome him to our

hearing.

Mr. Flores, I want to allow you to make your presentation. Your

written statement will be in the record in full. We would like to ask

you to see if you can keep your oral remarks to around 5 minutes.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Mr. Chairman, could I just ask, if he

needs more time, since he is the sole witness today, that he be

given additional time so he doesn’t have to rush through it?

Chairman WAXMAN. I think that is a reasonable request.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. OK.

Chairman WAXMAN. We will allow you whatever time you need

to make your presentation.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Don’t take too long.

Chairman WAXMAN. So you have the clear discretion to take as

much time as you need, but not too long.

Why don’t you go ahead.

STATEMENT OF J. ROBERT FLORES, ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE

OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

Mr. FLORES. Chairman Waxman, Ranking Member Davis, I am

Bob Flores, the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, a position I have held since 2002. Thank

you for the opportunity to appear before the committee and correct

the record publicly on issues surrounding the grants process in

2007.

By way of background, I have spent most of my professional career working in the juvenile justice world as an advocate for children. I have also spent the vast majority of my career as a public

servant, including 8 years as a career prosecutor within the Child

Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Justice Department’s

Criminal Division.

Over the last couple of months, allegations have been made

against me regarding my decisions concerning the 2007 National

Juvenile Justice Program solicitation. Each of those allegations is

false.

As my testimony will show and I hope this hearing brings out,

even a cursory review of the facts reveals these allegations for

what they are: an attempt to attack decisions that, while disagreed

with by some, were made under the authority of law and within

39

the Department’s discretion in a transparent and good faith manner.

I would also like to say at the outset that I am appearing before

the committee today voluntarily, and I intend to continue that cooperation fully with the committee. I am advised that as of June

12, 2008, the Department has produced over 12,000 pages of documents in response to the chairman’s request, and I have submitted

to questions by the committee staff.

Upon the conclusion of my remarks I look forward to answering

your questions truthfully and fully. In 2007, OJJDP had a discretionary funding line of $104 million.

Decisions on what to fund are shared between the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs, who has final grant

authority to make decisions, and the OJJDP Administrator, who,

based on experience and expertise, makes recommendations within

his discretion on what to fund as defined by the JJDPA and Department rules.

Shortly after the 2007 budget was passed, I met with the Assistant Attorney General for OJP, Regina Schofield, to discuss how to

address the needs of the large national programs that received Federal funds for years prior. The AAG made the decision to invite a

number of organizations that had received funding in prior years

to apply for specific amounts of money. Approximately $71 million

was committed from invitation.

Over the next weeks the AAG and I discussed the number, funding levels, and subject matter of the remaining solicitations, and in

the end five solicitations were posted, including the solicitation at

issue in this hearing, the National Juvenile Justice Program solicitation.

In response to the national program solicitation, OJJDP received

over 100 proposals. Once applications were received and accepted

for consideration, the proposals were subject to an internal peer review process. I believe that the peer review process is the first area

where misleading information has appeared in the media.

After an unauthorized leak of sensitive data, including the

names of OJJDP career staff who conducted the internal peer reviews, the public and the juvenile justice field were left with the

impression that the applications had received scores that related to

their worthiness for funding rather than what is actually the case:

that the application was well written, made sense, and clearly demonstrated that, if funded, the applicant could carry out the work

proposed.

The peer review process can’t be used to determine the value of

one grant against another because the panels don’t see all the applications. They are unaware of what else may be proposed and

what other programs of a similar nature have already been or may

be funded. Simply put, the peer reviewers lack the information necessary to make such judgments.

Moreover, as set forth in the solicitation, peer review scores were

meant to be advisory only.

In determining what programs should be funded under the national program solicitation, I relied on peer review scores, staff-prepared program summaries, and a review of budgets and applications. The deadlines we were working under were extremely tight,

40

and the OJP deadline for submission of grant award packages from

my office was set for July 31st. All of OJJDP worked hard to make

the deadline, including working through a weekend to get reviews

done.

I also brought my experience to bear on the process. Relying on

my 6 years of experience as Administrator and nearly 25 years of

experience working with children’s programs, directly with kids,

handling sexual abuse and exploitation investigations and prosecutions, and access to research and data across all of the office’s spectrum of work, I considered the needs of the programs and the field,

what works, and how to advance OJJDP’s entire mission, and on

that basis I made the recommendations.

I met with Ms. Schofield in person on two separate occasions to

discuss my grant recommendations. At the end of the first meeting

she requested I prepare a decision memorandum for her signature

setting out what each organization did, where each fit within the

peer review scores, and the amount of money I was recommending.

I prepared that memorandum, submitted it, and the Assistant Attorney General signed that memorandum, accepting my recommendations.

Media reports have accused me of creating secret categories

known only to me to allow me to choose only certain organizations

for funding. This is false.

First, there was no way I could know who would apply and under

what solicitation until after I received the list of applicants.

Second, I didn’t know what the proposals would be until they

were submitted, nor the size of the amounts requested.

The categories that were used on the spreadsheet that accompanied the memo were there to help me organize in my own mind,

as I did when I originally reviewed the applicants, who had applied, what they were proposing, and to help explain that to the

AAG. No confusion about my recommendations was ever voiced by

AAG Schofield, and the process she required was consistent with

law, regulation, and policy.

Moreover, every memo for every solicitation I submitted to her

and she signed had the same information. No questions were raised

about those presentations, either.

While some may disagree with my decisions, they were made in

accordance with the law, within Department rules, and in good

faith to address the needs of our children who find themselves in

the juvenile justice system or at risk of contact with it. I believe

that an objective view demonstrates that no important area of juvenile justice was overlooked, and awards were geographically diverse, as well.

I have received extensive criticism because I supported a single

program that is abstinence based. That program is known as the

Best Friends Foundation. What was not reported was that I also

sharply reduced their funding request and reduced the number of

years of funding because of the overall budget constraints we as an

office faced. It was also not reported that the program keeps girls

in school and improves their education and life outcomes.

Likewise, the First Tee program’s good work has been pilloried

simply because golf stereotypes live on. Some have reported the

program’s use of golf, but they failed to note that the First Tee’s

41

primary goal is not to make golfers of youth participants, but to

use golf as an environment in which to engage kids so that they

can be taught specific skills.

In addition, because of a relatively new school-based program

and efforts to reach needy kids, of First Tee participants, 20 percent are African American, 8 percent are Hispanic, 4 percent are

Asian, and 43 percent are girls. What was also missing from reports is that the program has been evaluated and shown to work.

In conclusion, OJJDP has made great progress on a wide array

of problems facing our kids and families. The awards in 2007 continue that work.

I ask that my full written statement be included in the record

and would be pleased to answer any questions that the committee

might have.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Davis.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Flores follows:]

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Flores.

We want to now proceed to questioning. Let me ask unanimous

consent that we start off with 10 minutes on each side. I will use

5 minutes of my 10. Mr. Davis will decide whether he wants to use

his full 10 or not. Whatever he doesn’t use, he can reserve. Then

I want to yield to Mr. Cummings, who is going to be back here, my

second 5 as well as his 5, so he will have a 10-minute round.

Without objection, we will proceed on that basis.

Mr. Flores, I thank you again for being here today and for your

statement. There are several groups I want to ask you about, and

I will begin with the Justice Research and Statistics Association.

It was one of the 104 groups that applied for a National Juvenile

Justice grant. Are you familiar with that group?

Mr. FLORES. I am, sir.

Chairman WAXMAN. Was it evaluated by the peer review team

that assessed the merits of each applicant?

Mr. FLORES. Yes, it was.

Chairman WAXMAN. And where did it rank?

Mr. FLORES. I believe it ranked at the top of the peer review

scores.

Chairman WAXMAN. It was No. 1. What was its score?

Mr. FLORES. I believe it was some place in the 98, received a

score of 98.

Chairman WAXMAN. Are you familiar with the Kentucky’s National Partnership for Juvenile Service?

Mr. FLORES. Yes, sir, I am.

Chairman WAXMAN. And that went through a peer review process. Where did it rank?

Mr. FLORES. Again, it was near the top. I don’t specifically remember.

Chairman WAXMAN. It was No. 2.

Mr. FLORES. OK, sir.

Chairman WAXMAN. Are you familiar with the Texas A&M University proposal?

Mr. FLORES. Yes, I am.

Chairman WAXMAN. And where did it rank among the 104

groups?

Mr. FLORES. Somewhere in the top three.

Chairman WAXMAN. That was No. 3. What about Minnesota’s

Winona State University’s proposal? Where did it rank?

Mr. FLORES. I believe it was No. 4, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman WAXMAN. No. 4. Finally, are you familiar with the Virginia Group, CSR, Inc., and their proposal? It went through the

peer review process. Where did it rank?

Mr. FLORES. I am familiar with CSR. That is an organization

that we currently use and provide funding to, and they, I believe,

ranked five in their application.

Chairman WAXMAN. And it was a score of 95?

Mr. FLORES. I believe so, sir.

Chairman WAXMAN. How many of these top five rated groups did

you decide to fund?

Mr. FLORES. None, sir.

Chairman WAXMAN. I want to make sure I understand this.

There were 104 groups that submitted applications for national juVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:40 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\47523.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
55

venile justice grants. The five groups I just asked you about were

the highest rated by your staff, and you decided against funding

any of them; is that right?

Mr. FLORES. Yes, sir.

Chairman WAXMAN. Now, how many career employees were part

of the peer review team?

Mr. FLORES. The career employees, again, were from the demonstration programs division, one of the components was in my office. I don’t remember whether or not they also had other employees from the Department from our office chip in to really work. As

I said, I do very clearly want the record to be clear this was an internal peer review. It was done by career staff in my office at my

direction.

Chairman WAXMAN. How many people were involved in the peer

review process?

Mr. FLORES. Well, if I can, the way it was set up is that there

were teams of two people who reviewed about seven or eight different applications, so on the whole maybe 15 to 20 people who

were involved.

Chairman WAXMAN. Fifteen to 20 people. You obviously disagreed with their work and concluded that their judgment was

flawed. Did you fire or reprimand any of these employees?

Mr. FLORES. Well, sir, with all due respect, I didn’t disagree with

their peer review ratings. I am assuming that they did what they

were asked to do, which was to compare the application to the solicitation requirements and to give them a score. But, as I said in

my opening statement, that does not equate with a decision that

they made or were recommending that this was the best program.

Again, because they met in teams of two and they only reviewed

7 or 8, given the fact there were more than 100 applications, no

team saw even 10 percent of all the applications.

So, again, I want to make sure that the committee is clear. It

wasn’t that I disagreed; I, in fact, paid very special attention to

that, because generally speaking I think the top 25 percent of

scored applicants make up a pool of very good applications, because, again, what the staff is telling me when they take a look is

saying these folks have a good logic model, the presentation makes

sense, and they will be able to do, if they are funded——

Chairman WAXMAN. Let me tell you how strange this appears to

me. Taxpayers fund a process to determine the most worthy programs for funding. The proposals must meet strict criteria and are

intended to help children, but none of the top five proposals were

approved for funding.

Let me ask you another question. I believe the Best Friends

Foundation received funding; is that correct?

Mr. FLORES. Yes, sir, it did.

Chairman WAXMAN. And where did it rank among the 104

groups?

Mr. FLORES. Again, I don’t know what number it ranked, but I

know that it received a score of 79.5.

Chairman WAXMAN. As I understand, it came in at 53 with a

score of 79.5. And you decided to fund them, but you didn’t fund

the Justice Research and Statistics Association, which your staff

ranked as the top applicant and had a score of 98. I just find that

56

very, very peculiar. It is one of the reasons I wanted to have you

here to pursue it.

I only have a few seconds left, so I am going to now recognize

Mr. Davis for his 10-minute interval.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Can you tell us, these top scores are just

peer reviews in terms of how these proposals are written, right?

Mr. FLORES. That is correct, Mr. Davis. They reflect whether or

not the applicant met the requirements of the solicitation requirements and whether that proposal was cogent, made sense, and, if

funded, would be able to do what they set out to do.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. That doesn’t necessarily mean they met

the priority that you may have in Justice for policy purposes; is

that correct?

Mr. FLORES. That is correct. And it also does not mean that we

have not funded similar programs using other funds of money or

that Congress has provided other dollars where we have already

made an investment to the tune of tens of millions of dollars in

that particular area.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. So, for example, the Justice Research

and Statistics Association, which was the ‘‘top rated,’’ why wouldn’t

you have funded them in this case?

Mr. FLORES. Well, again, we had provided funding in 1998. In 2006 we gave them $3.5 million. In 2006 there was $210,000. This

is a contract that allows us to do evaluation and performance

measures. Because of changes that we have made to try to bring

all of that together and better organize it, that particular grant application, even though it was a well-presented one, did not—there

was no need again for us to provide funds for that process.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. OK. You felt it was being met in other

ways?

Mr. FLORES. Yes.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. And so why waste the Department’s

money twice if you were trying to do this a different way?

Mr. FLORES. That is correct.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. OK. Let me ask the two controversial

ones. One was the World Golf Foundation in Florida, second, the

Best Friends Foundation. The majority seemed to make much of

these. These had been funded in previous years, had they not,

when you didn’t have discretion?

Mr. FLORES. Yes. There was an earmark, I believe, in 2003 or

2004, and then in 2005 I provided $250,000 as a discretionary

award. In 2006 I did not provide any discretionary funding for the

organization.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. But there had been congressional pressure in the past through the earmark process to fund these programs, right?

Mr. FLORES. Yes.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. So it would be naive to think that somehow you on your own, because of friendships or playing golf or

something, had just decided to fund these this year, because there

had been congressional intent shown. In fact, I think on the World

Golf Foundation I had signed a letter for that. That was First Tee.

That helps a lot of kids for a lot of different reasons.

Do you want to explain your purpose in funding these two for us?

57

Mr. FLORES. Sure. First, I just want to be clear——

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. We know there was a congressional intent. I think that is established in the record, so you are not alone

on this on wanting to fund these. This would have been the will

of Congress. It may not have been Mr. Waxman’s will or some of

the others. I don’t know if they voted for these or not. But this had

been congressional intent.

What was your intent?

Mr. FLORES. Well, going all the way back to my confirmation,

Mr. Davis, Senator Biden had asked a number of questions pertaining to girls’ programs and the situation facing girls because the arrest rate seemed to be going up at a time when boys’ rates were

going down, and even when it started to decline it was declining

at a slower rate.

During my tenure, I have really made an effort to try to focus

on girls and really bring them into the process. As a result, the reason we funded Best Friends was because they were doing a tremendous job keeping girls in school, keeping them from getting pregnant, keeping them from engaging in substance abuse activities.

And in the District of Columbia, for example, the girls who have

come through that, the high school girls who go through that program, Diamond Girls, there is a 100 percent graduation rate. In

the District where we know we have, unfortunately, a number of

challenges with schooling, that is a phenomenal program. So they

are not only present in D.C., they are present in California in Los

Angeles and in a number of other places, as my formal statement

points out.

With respect to the First Tee program, I will be very candid with

the committee. The first time I came into this job I looked at it and

said, well, why can’t the PGA fund this entirely? There is a lot of

strong corporate support, why can’t they do it by themselves? I

didn’t make a rash judgment, however. I talked with our staff. The

career staff really liked the program.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. The PGA does make a huge investment

in that program.

Mr. FLORES. Yes, they do, as does corporate America, so for every

dollar of Federal funds, there is actually a substantial amount of

leveraging that goes on. Plus, these First Tee programs are now all

over the United States, and they have also launched a school-based

program so that they can take their training and their materials

and bring them into the physical education programs of a number

of schools.

And this is one of the best parts of it: they are now able to move

into really needy areas through the school systems, elementary

schools, and really use that as a way of getting kids. As we know,

we do have an obesity issue. We have a number of issues.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Let me ask the question on golf. Teaching inner city kids to teach golf, is that really the priority of the

Department?

Mr. FLORES. No. The priority of the Department is to find ways

to engage kids so that we can teach them life skills, so we can

teach them about honesty and commitment and putting aside immediate gratification and really working to gain skills, and so that

is what the parents see. This program has been evaluated by the

58

University of Virginia and Nevada Las Vegas, and Arizona, and

found to be successful. So this is a program where a lot of folks are

coalescing around it to build community support to help the neediest kids. I think for us those are the kids who would likely end

up in the juvenile system if they don’t get some help and some support.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Let me just note, First Tee does a breakfast up here every year. Tim Fincham is a law school classmate of

mine, and was actually Congressman Good’s moot court partner at

the University of Virginia Law School. Mr. Fincham, just for the

record, was a Democratic candidate for Commonwealth Attorney in

Virginia Beach before he became head of the PGA. But they feature

each year First Tee and what they are doing for kids around the

country.

I went to the first meeting really because I got to meet Jack

Nicklaus. I had no idea what First Tee was. I was actually very,

very impressed with this program and how it had actually turned

kids’ lives around, give them something to get up for in the morning, give them some focus, teach them some discipline.

But that was your thought process, as well. This was my process

in Congress of being one of many signatories from both sides of the

aisle to support this, and you at this point have funded it this particular year.

Mr. FLORES. I did, sir.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Most of these programs I gather, the top

50, top 60 programs, were good programs; is that correct?

Mr. FLORES. That is correct. If you take a look at the scores, you

really, even when you go down to the top 25 percent, which is the

top quintile of scores, you really have very good programs represented there. This is not a question that there aren’t good programs and that is the reason they weren’t funded.

There was very limited amount of money in this particular solici- tation, only $8.6 million. I think the field also was greatly disappointed when they saw—you know, they were hoping that there

would be a $104 million solicitation and there wasn’t, and so there

was a lot of expectation in terms of what would be available. So

I think, again, expectations were not matched by the reality.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Let me ask you this: do you at all look

at the congressional districts that these would go into, and would

these help a Member? Was there any pressure from anybody to say

this recipient is in a Member’s District and they need political help

and we would like you to fund it?

Mr. FLORES. Absolutely not.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Did that ever come up in your consideration or anybody’s discussions with you?

Mr. FLORES. No, sir.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. All right. Thank you very much.

In peer review, as well, when these grades come out, you don’t

have the same grader grading every single application, do you?

Mr. FLORES. No.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. So you may have, in terms of a score of

98 versus a 90, a different group giving gradings that has basically

subjective, different criteria? You may have someone that is an

easier grader than someone else; is that possible?

59

Mr. FLORES. It is not only possible; it is actually reflected in the

materials that we submitted to the committee. Some of the peer review scores differ 5, 10 points.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. So if I just get the right person reviewing

it, I am going to have a higher score going in, correct? Or the

wrong person, a lower score?

Mr. FLORES. Initially that is the case, but we do make efforts to

try to weight those and to come up with a way so that we can have

some way of comparing apples to oranges.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Well, you may do that, but that wouldn’t

be reflected in these documents, would they?

Mr. FLORES. No.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. So you have to then take a look at understanding who was grading what. That would be a factor in your decisions. It wouldn’t be just openly expressed, right?

Mr. FLORES. No, Mr. Davis. I think on that, when I get those

scores, what I tend to do is to look to make sure that I am selecting

from a pool of qualified organizations, and that generally——

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. In other words, if they all have a pass

rate?

Mr. FLORES. Yes. That is correct.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. And they have to meet a certain criteria,

and after that you look at a number of other factors?

Mr. FLORES. Absolutely.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. And I would gather then, from the way

these are listed, once they meet that criteria, whether it is 99 or

87, doesn’t matter that much in the selection?

Mr. FLORES. No, it doesn’t, because, again, even the applicants

are told in the solicitation that these peer review scores are advisory only. It is part of what we take into consideration. If I only

looked at the peer review scores, there would be no need for an Administrator for this office. You could simply just automatically push

these dollars forward without any thought or any effort to try to

cover the entire mission of OJJDP.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Would it have been better just to rate

these pass/fail if you don’t take them into consideration?

Mr. FLORES. Well, I am not sure. I think I would have to really

think about that. But clearly the scores that are in the top 25 percent, top 30 percent, depending upon how they are clustered—in

this particular grant we did not have a lot of scores at the bottom,

so things were really pushed up very high. We had, obviously, some

that scored horribly, but that is at the beginning. Once I get that,

I have to really look at many other issues in order to be fair not

only to the applicants, but also to be fair to the needs of the field,

and to make sure that our mission actually is carried out.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Davis.

I am going to use a little bit of the time I had.

Mr. Flores, your peer review team gave a ranking, they gave a

score, and next to each program they had an R for recommended,

and for those that did not receive a high score it says not recommended [NR]. So it isn’t as if all of these had been recommended

by the peer review; some were recommended and some not recVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:40 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\47523.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
60

ommended. And, as I understand it, the two that had just been discussed were in the NR category.

I have been a critic of earmarks. The reason I am a critic of earmarks is that I think Government funds ought to go based on

merit, not based on the political clout of individual Members of

Congress. That is why I urged people to stop the earmark process

so we can develop something based on merit.

Here you had all of this money to be distributed based on merit

because the Congress did not put in earmarks. The reason Congress did not put in the earmarks is because Congress couldn’t get

a budget through, an appropriation through; it was just on a continuing resolution. So Justice had the obligation to decide on the

merits. For you to take into consideration that there had been a lot

of congressional support for a golf thing, that is not your job. Your

job was to decide it on the merits. I just wanted to make that point

out of the time that I still have reserved to me.

I now want to recognize Ms. Watson for 5 minutes.

Ms. WATSON. I want to thank the chairman for this hearing

today.

Mr. Flores, on May 17, 2007 the Justice Department issued a

public solicitation with 10 priority funding areas, but on July 17th,

when you wrote your decision memo recommending applications for

funding, you set forth eight priority areas, some of which were the

same as the public solicitation, but most of which were different.

Now, what we have been hearing you say today is that was a

misleading press report and they have mischaracterized your actions and that false press report claimed that you had secret criteria only known to the administration. So these criticisms aren’t

coming from the press, they are coming from your own staff. And

the committee interviewed several officials in your office, including

Civil Service employees, the career program managers, and even

your politically appointed supervisor. None of them said that they

had heard of your categories before they saw your July 17th memo.

So the question is: if these were your real priority areas for the

office, why didn’t you share them with your own staff?

Mr. FLORES. Thank you for the question. That has been an area

of substantial confusion. Let me just say again, if you take a look

at the memorandum that I submitted to the Assistant Attorney

General, what you will see very clearly under the recommendations

that I listed are the categories that were part of the solicitation:

building protective factors to combat juvenile delinquency, reducing

child victimization, and improving the juvenile justice system.

Within those, though, one of the things that I wanted to do, because there were so many different types of applications, so many

different types of work that were being proposed, I needed to provide a way to explain what those things were. So what I did was,

within those categories, I identified, in essence placed a label on

what those programs did.

So for example, with respect to the building protective factors, we

were very clear in the solicitation. We actually said sports programming would be one of those things within that category. So

when I listed on page 3 of that memo the World Golf Foundation,

I again highlighted how that fit into the category one, which was

utilizing sports-based outreach efforts directed at high-risk youth.

61

It has been mischaracterized that these were secret or preexisting categories. That is not the case. These were the way that I was

able to explain where those fit in into the overall categories.

If you take a look at the remainder of the memo you will see that

I was consistent with that throughout.

I would also note that I submitted an additional four other

memoranda under this particular funding flow, Part E, and all of

the memos took the same form, provided the same kind of information. Again I would note there was never any question prior to

them being signed by the Assistant Attorney General.

Ms. WATSON. I am concerned about your own priorities. I represent a city called Los Angeles, and it is a city that gave the world

the Crips and the Bloods. I am very concerned when I look at your

set of your own priorities. They don’t necessarily match with the

DOJ criteria.

Our Chair made reference to earmarks. He has been concerned

about them, because we wanted to be sure that there were some

criteria that we all agreed upon, and so we never know when a person is focusing on their own areas what the priorities are, will affect that area.

I am concerned that you say very little about integrating minorities, disproportionate minority contact and improving juvenile detention and the correction centers. Too many of our youth, African

American youth and Hispanic youth in our city end up in lockups.

I want you to explain to me why you haven’t set as a priority

and you have—well, I say you didn’t share that with your staff.

You just came up with this set, as I understand. So how do you

explain veering off and putting your own targets in place rather

than the criteria of DOJ?

Mr. FLORES. Ma’am, Congresswoman, I would first say a couple

things. Gangs are an incredibly high priority for the Department

and for my office. In Los Angeles, we have had a long-term relationship with the mayor’s office since my tenure to really focus on

gangs. In fact, it has been so successful it was the model that was

recommended by Connie Rice for the mayor’s office to adopt. The

last that I know is that the mayor’s office is in the process of funding, to the tune of $150 million, more or less, the in essence

replication——

Ms. WATSON. Can I just interrupt you? I am looking at the list,

and I am sure you have that list, and it says disproportionate minority contact and improved juvenile detention and correction centers. I made reference to it when I opened. I don’t see it on your

list of priorities. I don’t know what you put in place. You said you

worked with the mayor. Is that the mayor of Los Angeles?

Mr. FLORES. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. WATSON. OK. Well, I don’t see it reflected in your priorities.

I am looking at, on the other side of this paper, your priorities. I

think you have the same list that I have. So can you explain why

there is not an emphasis, or are you referring to something that

was already there? These are different priorities.

Chairman WAXMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FLORES. Absolutely.

Chairman WAXMAN. Mr. Duncan.

62

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Most of the time when I come to these hearings I have a briefing

beforehand or do some reading beforehand and know a little bit

more about it. Because of other things I was working on, I really

didn’t know much about what this hearing was about until I got

here, but I can tell you that I have been reading some of this material and I see that this program has given money to the Boys and

Girls Clubs of America. That is one of the finest organizations in

the country. I am very familiar with their work in Knoxville and

around the country. The Cal Ripken Foundation, I have read about

the work that they do with young people. The DARE program, I

have spoken at DARE graduations teaching kids about drugs. Mr.

Davis mentioned that.

But we get to these grants. You know, every Federal contract is

a sweetheart deal of one sort or another, almost. They all go to

former Federal employees or companies associated who hire former

Federal employees, and the Defense Department is the biggest example of that. They hire all the retired admirals and generals and

then they get contracts, sweetheart contracts totaling in the billions.

If I add this up, I think these grants come to about $8 million

that we are talking about here specifically, but I can tell you I am

familiar with the first two programs. We built a par three golf

course in an African American section of Knoxville, and the work

that the First Tee program does with these kids is just fantastic,

in my opinion.

I didn’t know what the Best Friends organization was. A staffer

just told me a few minutes ago that it is a program to teach inner

city girls in the District about problems that can come with premarital or under-age sex, and so forth, sex education. I see they

said it is headed up by the wife of Bob Bennett, who is one of the

most respected lawyers in this city. I sure see nothing wrong with

that.

I don’t know about what some of these others are. What is the

Enough is Enough program? Do you know what that is?

Mr. FLORES. Yes. That is an organization that is working to educate parents and families, as well as communities, on the dangers

and risks of internet predators, internet pornography, and has actually testified numerous times before the Congress as experts on

that work.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, there is sure nothing wrong with that. What

is the Latino Coalition for Faith and Community Initiatives?

Mr. FLORES. They are a great organization that works with a lot

of small local community faith-based and community organizations

that are targeting Hispanic kids with great need. And one of the

things that they do is that they make sure that the money that

these smaller groups receive is managed properly, that they can

participate in the audit process, that they get technical assistance

and support in actually administering those Federal funds. So what

they do is they are really a point of leverage for us to make sure

that we increase both the responsibility over those Federal funds,

and make sure that we know effectively how those programs are

being run.

63

Mr. DUNCAN. You know, I can tell you every one of these things

sound very defensible to me, and a lot better than many of the

things the Federal Government does. What happens, you know, we

are not machines here. Every human being, whether he or she

wants to admit it or not, we all have feelings, opinions, prejudices,

beliefs. Those enter in. They can talk about having objective ratings. What you have, all the staff people who worked on these,

their feelings, their opinions, their prejudices, their beliefs entered

into their rankings. Whoever takes your place as head of this program is going to have those same feelings and prejudices and feelings. He or she is going to favor some organizations over others.

What you have here apparently, you have very few winners and

you have a whole lot of losers, and apparently this is come about

from one or more sore losers in this process. I don’t see anything

wrong with what you have done.

Thank you very much.

Mr. FLORES. Thank you.

Chairman WAXMAN. The gentleman has a minute or two. Would

you yield to me?

Mr. DUNCAN. Yes.

Chairman WAXMAN. Well, we ought to say that all these grants

ought to be distributed based on Mr. Flores’ decisionmaking, but

instead we had a whole set of criteria and people to review them

and to make recommendations in order to decide on the merits.

Well, if merit is being whatever Mr. Flores wants, why bother with

the rest of that process?

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Will the gentleman yield? I mean, I he

took those—Mr. Flores, you took that into account, didn’t you?

Mr. FLORES. Yes, I did.

Mr. DUNCAN. It wasn’t that these ratings by the professional

staff were irrelevant, was it?

Mr. FLORES. No. They were important in establishing the pool of

qualified applicants.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. OK. Thank you.

Chairman WAXMAN. The gentleman’s time is expired.

I would like to now recognize Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly was listening very closely to the line of questioning by

Mr. Duncan. I have a tremendous amount of respect for him, but

there are some things that I think were not quite kosher in all of

this, and that is what I want to deal with.

Mr. Flores, I would like to ask you about the grant to the World

Golf Foundation.

Before I start, I would like to say that I don’t know very much

about this organization. I know that they came in to meet with

staff and they were helpful. I know that Former President Bush is

their honorary Chair, so I assume they do good work. But when the

career staff in your office reviewed the proposal from the World

Golf Foundation, they found significant problems with its design

elements and its lack of focus. They concluded that the proposal did

not adequately explain how funding this group would advance juvenile justice. The peer review team ranked this proposal 47th out of

104.

64

On Monday you told the committee staff in 2006 you took a trip

to Florida to visit the World Golf Foundation at their annual meeting. We have the agenda from the meeting, and it shows that on

Friday, February 17th, there was a golf outing at the Slammer and

Squire Golf Course. Are you familiar?

Mr. FLORES. Yes, I am.

Mr. CUMMINGS. We have a picture of this course so you can see

what it looks like. The agenda says that the golfing was followed

by lunch and awards.

When my staff asked you about this on Monday, you told them

you played golf on this trip; is that correct?

Mr. FLORES. Yes, sir, I did.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Flores, in 1989 Congress passed the Ethics

Reform Act, which states that no officer or employee of the executive branch ‘‘shall accept anything of value from a person seeking

official action from, doing business with, or conducting activities

regulated by the individual’s employing entity.’’ In 2006 the World

Golf Foundation had a grant from your office. In fact, that is why

you went to Florida to meet with the officials; is that right?

Mr. FLORES. Yes, sir.

Mr. CUMMINGS. But the green fees for this course are in the hundreds of dollars, so if the World Golf Foundation played for your

game, then you received something of value, which would seem to

be a violation of the Ethics Reform Act.

So let me ask you this, Mr. Flores: when you played at Slammer

and Squire in 2006 did you pay for your round of golf?

Mr. FLORES. I did not pay for it at the time because the way that

this situation came up was after the dinner I was told that there

would be a golf outing the next day and that I could fill in a foursome, so I took the opportunity to do that, which gave me a chance

to talk with those folks during the course of the day and then also

to meet with people after the round was over.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Flores, let me ask you this, because I don’t

have much time.

Mr. FLORES. Yes, sir.

Mr. CUMMINGS. We have a copy of the receipt that was provided

to the committee last night. It is my understanding that you did

pay, which I would like to put up on the screen. The date of this

receipt is yesterday, and it shows that you paid $159 yesterday.

Why did you wait until yesterday to pay for a round of golf that

happened 2 years ago?

Mr. FLORES. Again, when I signed up to play I made efforts that

day to pay for it, but they were not set up. Again, there was no

Federal funding tied to this golf round for any of the other participants either. Everyone was paying their way. After I asked for an

invoice. They told me that they would just go ahead and send me

a bill. I had staff followup on that on several occasions, never received one, and so I continued from time to time to followup until

we contacted Kelly Martin, and she was able to give us a cost, because this was tied into also, as you had pointed out, sir, prizes

and other things that I was not part of and wasn’t involved in. So

when that cost was finally given to me, I immediately paid it.

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right.

65

Mr. FLORES. It wasn’t that large an amount of money. I simply

gave them a credit card and they charged it against that.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, Mr. Flores, you say you can explain it and

I think you just did, but I hope you can understand how it appears

to the taxpayer and other grant applicants. You go to Florida in

2006 and play golf with officials from the World Golf Foundation

who paid for your green fees. The next year you disregard the recommendations of the career staff and award the Golf Foundation

hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants, and you don’t pay the

Golf Foundation back until the day before you are called to testify.

The appearance is that the playing field was not level. And no

matter what Mr. Duncan says, we are talking about level playing

fields. Your actions cast a taint over the entire process. No matter

how great the Boys and Girls Club is, no matter how great the Cal

Ripken Club is—and, by the way, I am from Baltimore, so I fully

support that club, and I know Cal Ripken personally. That is why

there are laws against accepting this kind of gift that you took

from the Golf Foundation. Do you understand that?

Mr. FLORES. Yes, sir.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Based on the documents and interviews, it appears that you met personally with Joe Barrow, the executive director of the World Golf Foundation, on June 6, 2007, along with

your chief of staff, Michele Dekonty.

Mr. FLORES. Yes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. This was right in the middle of the grant application process. The public solicitation had gone out, and applicants

were busy drafting and submitting their proposals which were due

in about a week. Were you giving the World Golf Foundation special treatment by meeting with Mr. Barrow at the time?

Mr. FLORES. No. I try to meet with anyone who wants a meeting

as quickly as we can get those meetings set up. We also provide,

during this time, technical assistance to anyone making an application so that they have an idea as to not only how to submit the

application, but the nitty gritty in terms of dealing with the computer systems and all those kinds of things.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I am glad you said that, because I want to ask

you this: you say that you didn’t give Mr. Barrow special treatment

by meeting with him, but the record shows that you rejected the

requests of other groups for meetings. For example, you didn’t meet

with the President of Parents Anonymous, a great organization,

who requested a meeting a week earlier. According to the e-mail

sent by one of your staffers, you had an understanding with your

office that you wouldn’t take such meetings.

Here is what the e-mail said. ‘‘Per our understanding, these calls

were to be handled by Program Managers and to protect you from

folks beating down your door saying that you were not available.’’

Is that correct? Open door for one and others will follow, you know

how the grapevine works. I mean, is that your position?

Mr. FLORES. I have great respect for Parents Anonymous and I

have worked and appeared at their organization several years in

a row as their keynote speaker. I knew that they were asking for

funds. I knew that they would probably be applying for funds. At

that time the decision was that we would try and meet with as

many people as we could, but we couldn’t meet with everyone, and

66

that is the reference there in that e-mail, I believe. I know that I

have seen that, but I can’t remember the specific language. But the

goal obviously was, since my schedule was pretty tight, was to

make sure that I was not going to get an individual meeting with

every single person who wanted to have one.

Mr. CUMMINGS. But do you understand what the appearance is?

Mr. FLORES. Yes, sir, I understand that sometimes, even when

we are trying to make the best decision you can, the appearance

is not necessarily in line with that.

Mr. CUMMINGS. After meeting with the World Golf Foundation

on June 6th, you and your chief of staff, Michele Dekonty directed

Jeff Slowitowski, the career official in charge of the peer review

process, to inform the World Golf Foundation personally of solicitations and help them apply for this solicitation, but Mr. Slowitowski

told the committee that he thought this was special treatment.

Mr. Flores, do you think you gave the World Golf Foundation

special treatment as Mr. Slowitowski testified before our committee?

Mr. FLORES. No, sir.

Mr. CUMMINGS. And so, Mr. Flores, let me put one document on

the screen. This is an e-mail from Mr. Slowitowski on June 8th,

just 2 days after your meeting. It states, ‘‘World Golf made the

grants.gov deadline. I am certain we are funding because Michele

has said as much.’’ When he says Michele, he is referring to

Michele Dekonty, your chief of staff who has refused to talk to the

committee and invoked the fifth amendment. Did you know that?

Mr. FLORES. Yes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Did you know she invoked the fifth amendment

before this committee?

Mr. FLORES. Yes, I did.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Does that concern you?

Mr. FLORES. That is her right under the law.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I didn’t ask you that. I said does it concern you?

Mr. FLORES. I don’t have any concerns about that, sir.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Why would Mr. Slowitowski, a career official,

think that the fix was in and it was certain that the World Golf

Association would get a grant? Why is that?

Mr. FLORES. I don’t know.

Mr. CUMMINGS. The documents show that you were having direct

meetings with the World Golf Foundation at the same time you

were refusing others. You were directing your staff to provide assistance they weren’t providing others. And your chief of staff was

saying you had already decided to fund the application before the

peer review process had even begun. If that isn’t special treatment,

I don’t know what is, and it creates a significant problem, whether

grants are being given to the Cal Ripken Foundation or anybody

else. It is a question of level playing field, it is a question of fairness, and it is a question of making sure that when taxpayers’ dollars are being spent, they are being spent on the basis of equity,

parity, and a process that everybody is subjected to fairly.

With that, I am extremely concerned, and I think you should be,

too.

With that I yield back.

67

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Cummings, could I respond? Would that be all

right?

Ms. WATSON [presiding]. Yes.

Mr. FLORES. I just want to say very clearly the decision to fund

or not to fund was mine. It was not Ms. Dekonty’s or anyone else.

I was certainly getting information from people, my career staff as

well as my other colleagues, but I made that decision, and I made

that decision after taking a look at the merits of it, not because I

had had a conversation or a sit-down meeting with anyone.

There were people there in the groups that did not receive funding that I have talked to, I have talked to on the phone, I knew

a lot about their program.

For example, the Winona State University proposal is an excellent proposal. The problem with that, though, is that we are already making, to the tune of, I think over $15 million investments

in child abuse and neglect. So the suggestion that somehow because someone gets to sit down and have a conversation with me

and has redress to the Government that is leading to my making

a judgment simply on that basis, I am not prepared to accept that.

Ms. WATSON. Time is up.

Mr. Sali.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. I have 21⁄2 minutes first before Mr. Sali,

if that would be all right with the Chair.

Ms. WATSON. Absolutely. Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. I am intrigued. I mean, as you get the

peer group review underneath you, they are looking at an individual application and how it is written vis-a-vis the criteria, but they

don’t understand how everything fits together, how you may have

too much funding in child abuse or not enough in drug prevention;

isn’t that right?

Mr. FLORES. That is correct.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. And so ultimately you could have the top

rated ones could all be in one area and you wouldn’t get coverage

in others. Isn’t that one of the reasons that they have you make

the decision within the Department instead of just being done

through a computer?

Mr. FLORES. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Or through peer review? I mean, I think

that is the point.

Mr. FLORES. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. And these are tough decisions, and I may

think it is appropriate to have you called up here when people

write a good proposal and don’t get it and have you explain it. It

keeps everybody on their toes when you have to do that. But I

want to make the point that I think you have made it clear in each

of these cases why you went the way you did. People can agree or

disagree with it. These are judgment subjective calls, and somebody else sitting in your position might have made a different decision than you did. But that is not waste, fraud, and abuse. That

is just a difference of opinion. There is no violation of law that I

see here and no violation of regulation. These are just judgment

calls that you, as a Senate confirmed administration appointee,

have to make along the way.

68

It is a little disheartening sometimes to see underlings complain

about it, come to the committee and complain about this, but you

will find this, particularly at Justice, where some of the career staff

who have different political views often go to the press or to somebody else and start complaining about it. But they are not elected

to run the Government, you are as an administration appointee

elected to run the Government and to make these decisions.

We can disagree all day about it, but that is the way it works.

And Congress has had the ability in the past to earmark these programs and they chose not to do it in 2007.

So for Members who do not like it, you can look back at that

budget process and say, we made a mistake; we should have done

it, we’d do a better job of it. That is the option you have.

And I go back again to Glasgow Intermediate School, which met

a very high criteria for an educational grant under the previous administration and didn’t get it and the money went somewhere else,

and I asked appropriate questions at the time and met with the administration officials making it, and I was satisfied at the end of

the day that it really wasn’t a political call, but my first opportunity to earmark that grant I did the next time around and it has

helped that school as if it had been able to fund all of these it

would have done the same.

Now, I think, Mr. Sali we are ready to go to.

Chairman WAXMAN [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Davis.

Mr. Sali, you are recognized.

Mr. SALI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Flores.

Mr. FLORES. Good morning, sir.

Mr. SALI. The National Partnership for Juvenile Services submitted a grant application and, as a part of that program, there is a

juvenile detention center in Coldwell, ID, 90-bed facility, that has

been run by a gentleman by the name of Steven Jett, apparently

since 1993. I understand that they are pretty proud of their program there and that they have a pretty good record with the facility there.

I understand that grant application was ranked No. 2. Without

going into an awful lot of detail, I understand that the applications

that were ranked 39th, 42nd, 44th, and 53rd all received funding,

but this proposal that was ranked No. 2 did not receive funding,

in spite of the fact that it appears to be a very good program.

I recognize that you have been put in place to make decisions

and use your judgment. On the other hand, I hope you will recognize that this does raise eyebrows when the No. 2 program does

not get funded and these other lower-scoring applications do get

funded.

Can you explain to me the reasoning why National Partnership

for Juvenile Services, which was ranked No. 2, was not given funding, but these other lower-ranking proposals were? What were the

factors upon which your judgment was based on that particular

case?

Mr. FLORES. Thanks for the question. I appreciate that.

First of all, the proposal overall was to create a new center, a

new national center to explore confinement issues, so this was not

funding that was going to go directly to a particular detention facilVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:40 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\47523.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
69

ity or a particular corrections establishment. This was really designed to create a new center, which would explore these confinement issues, promote best practices, conduct data collection efforts,

and also provide technical assistance.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, that

is our job. So in my view this was requesting the creation of an organization that was going to mirror very much what we already do.

For example, our office, congressional funding comes to our office that we administer to the tune of, I think, usually around $80 million a year that goes to States that they can use for disproportionate minority confinement, which is DMC. I am sorry to use those

acronyms—disproportionate minority confinement. We provide, as

a result of a set-aside that Congress has, I think, wisely built into

the statute, technical assistance and training, and on more than

one occasion we have actually used folks connected to a number of

the organizations that would be made up by the NPJS.

I also looked at the requirement. I took 2007, sir, to be an anomaly, that we probably would not see in 2008 again part E with no

earmarks, and so I was looking at how do I make the best decision

with 1-year funding, because I can’t make really long-term decisions where I am going to create a new center, in essence, provide

that initial funding, and then not be able to continue that level of

support. I know what goes into creating these national centers. It

is expensive. It is hard to get the infrastructure dollars.

So rather than build new infrastructure, I decided up front, after

looking at what had actually come in—because I didn’t know until

I actually saw the list of organizations that had applied—that,

based on the dollars being requested and the types of work that

were being proposed by all of the top-scoring grantees, that I would

not invest in the creation of new centers.

That was my thinking on that. It wasn’t that the idea is not a

good one and that if private funding were available for that or we

were in a different type of budget environment that we might not

go ahead and do that, but under the circumstances we only had

$8.6 million to award under this grant solicitation.

If I had taken the top three centers, one center was promoted by

NPJS, the other two were put out by NCPC, one on girls and one

on violence prevention, I think, if I recall correctly, that would have

taken up the entire budget. We would have only been able to make

three awards.

I did not know, did not have the confidence that I did with other

organizations that I could really reduce their funding and they

would still be able to do the work that they were proposing.

That was my thinking process, sir.

Mr. SALI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman WAXMAN. OK. The gentleman has completed his questioning and time has expired.

The Chair recognizes Ms. Foxx.

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t have any questions

at this time. Thank you.

Chairman WAXMAN. OK. Who is next? Mr. Issa.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you.

The fundamental challenge, it seems, that you face is that all of

you are Senate confirmed individually. Does that create a bit of a

70

conflict, in your mind, of the chain of command? And I am not trying to put you on a hot spot, but in a sense isn’t it usual to have

a Senate confirmed leader who then essentially has the allegiance

of people that are not Senate confirmed beneath him, and that is

not the case here. Does that create some conflict in your mind or

some question?

Mr. FLORES. With all due respect, it is just the system I am in,

so we have attempted to deal with it. I have some great colleagues,

both appointees as well as the career staff, who work very hard on

these issues.

Mr. ISSA. And I realize that every Ambassador is confirmed, in

addition to the people above them, but the reason I ask the question is your allegiance, if you will, is it to a certain extent to interviews, promises, the attitudes necessary to get confirmed versus, if

you will, the priorities of those above you or below you?

Mr. FLORES. No. Sir, I took an oath to do the best job I possibly

could, to defend the Constitution, to abide by its laws, and that is

where my—as I have told my staff, it is about the children. These

are our kids, not somebody else’s children that we are worried

about. That is what I worry about.

Mr. ISSA. So you would say that there is no priority based on any

political consideration; that even though you are all political appointees confirmed by the Senate, you are not beholding to either

the appointer or the confirming Senate?

Mr. FLORES. No, sir.

Mr. ISSA. OK.

Mr. FLORES. My responsibility is to make sure that these kids

get help.

Mr. ISSA. OK. And up until now I think you have focused solely

on the so-called priorities for funding, but isn’t it the case that your

boss, Ms. Schofield, had priorities of her own?

Mr. FLORES. Yes, she did.

Mr. ISSA. You funded the Native American Children’s Alliance—

that was at her request because of her own priorities, isn’t that

true?

Mr. FLORES. Yes.

Mr. ISSA. Isn’t it true that the Native American Children’s Alliance received the same score, an 82, that World Golf received?

Mr. FLORES. I believe that is right.

Mr. ISSA. So in the case of a tie, it is a political decision?

Mr. FLORES. Yes. I think, again, she had priorities, she had information, and she had an understanding of the overall mission not

just of OJJDP but of OJP, and so she moved to do that.

I would just note for the record that my understanding is that

there was insufficient funding in the solicitation pot for the national programs, so she actually identified $250,000 in de-obligated

funds and made those available on top of the money that was available for the national program solicitation, and that was something

that only she could do, because those are dollars she controls.

Mr. ISSA. OK. And typically grant awarding year a contractor is

hired to review the grant applications and score each application,

but for fiscal year 2007 OJJDP—that is not a catchy name—decided that the solicitation entitled for 2007 National Juvenile Justice Programs, the applications would be reviewed by internal peer

71

reviews. Was that wise to essentially bring them into what you sort

of admitted is a political environment?

Mr. FLORES. Well, I think that in this particular case it was. We

were working under tight deadlines, and the staff was being asked

not to opine as to the worthiness of these applications, but they

were being asked to determine whether or not the applications

were sound and to create a pool for me.

Mr. ISSA. So you weren’t reviewing which would get the best

bang for the taxpayers’ dollars, but rather whether the applications

were accurate?

Mr. FLORES. Well, whether they were complete and well presented. That was the peer review portion. The other question really

focused on me, and that was my responsibility to make recommendations.

Mr. ISSA. So would it be fair to say that if, in fact, you are looking for completeness of applications and then, if you will, priorities

of individuals, and you don’t have an independent grant peer review grant process that evaluates the quality of the return on investment to the stakeholders—in this case the taxpayers—that, in

fact, this is charity more than it is return on investment?

Mr. FLORES. No, sir. Those are considerations that I make when

it gets to my desk in terms of the peer review. For example, that

is one of the reasons that I thought the First Tee program was

such a valuable asset, because they leverage a lot of private dollars

and other dollars that come into the organization.

Those are the issues that I do, in fact, ask. That is the reason

why we didn’t go with JRSA, the No. 1 rated peer review scored

program, because we had already made some changes within our

office, and to go ahead and fund them would have wasted those

dollars.

Likewise, you know, we are always looking. Texas A&M proposal, which was identified by the chairman a little while ago, that

was a locally State-based program. That wasn’t even national in

scope. Those are just things that, again, on my responsibility as the

appointee, when I am trying to prepare my recommendations to the

final decisionmaker.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman WAXMAN. Mr. Platts.

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Flores, I, for one, appreciate your service to our Nation and

our citizens and the importance of your work because it does deal

with children and how we deal with preventing juvenile delinquency and all the related issues that go with that.

I do have some specific questions. I apologize for not hearing

your previous testimony. Hopefully I won’t be too repetitive of what

you have already addressed.

It does come from an applicant in my District, a longstanding,

well-regarded, 30-year history, and some questions they have

raised as ones trying to fairly participate and compete.

I know you have talked a little bit about the criteria, the priorities, the categorical priorities that were set for what you were

looking for for applications in this round. My understanding, from

my constituent agency, is that, in essence, after the deadline

72

passed, additional new priorities were applied that were not delineated to the applicants. If I understand from your testimony earlier, from my staff, is that you did address that, that you had an

initial screening and then you applied some additional priority review.

I guess my question is: why would that not have been shared

with the applicants up front, what you are looking for, rather than

them go through a process? If you have priorities, why have them

go through the process of applying if it is really not in the area

that you are looking to prioritize?

Mr. FLORES. I really do appreciate that question, because I think

there has been a lot of concern about that issue.

When I sat down with the Assistant Attorney General to come

up with the remaining solicitations after the invitations had been

made and we knew what the dollars would be for these other solicitations, we had a choice: we could either be fairly narrow and put

out a national program solicitation that really wasn’t a national

program solicitation, it was, again, a subject matter solicitation,

much like the others we have done—prevention, intervention, substance abuse, mentoring, those kinds of fairly specific issues.

Mr. PLATTS. Yes.

Mr. FLORES. It was my decision to put out a broad national program solicitation. Intentionally, if you take a look at the solicitation, there were three very broad categories.

Mr. PLATTS. Right.

Mr. FLORES. What I wanted to signal to the field was, while it

may not be a lot of money, and I don’t believe that we let people

know what the amount of money was. That would have been unusual in any event. I wanted to at least encourage people, give people an opportunity to bring before me great programs. I mean, I

know a lot about what is going on in the field because I get a lot

of information across my desk and my staff is very good about that,

but I don’t know everything. So I was waiting to get this information, and people applied. I had no idea who was going to apply and

what for.

Once those came in and I saw the peer review scores, I had to

come up with a way of putting them into categories. It wasn’t that

I had categories prior to seeing what was there, but, for example,

JRSA—again, the top peer review scored organization—they are in

the statistics, data, evaluation business, so that is kind of the heading that they were under, and there were other similar kinds of organizations all the way throughout the top 25 percent.

We had a number of centers that were being proposed, whether

it was by NCPC or by the National Juvenile Partnership, so these

are not, contrary to what they have been suggested to be, special

little categories that I had that I didn’t tell anybody about. These

were the descriptive labels and the categories that I had when I

saw what was actually on the table. So there was nothing new introduced, but I had to then figure out from those groups that actually applied which ones now, looking at the entire JJ funding universe, which ones made sense.

Mr. PLATTS. My understanding is that in the initial three broad

categories there are subcategories totaling about 10 specific areas,

3 under 2 of them and 4 subcategories under the 3rd, so you had

73

10, and you had your applications, and then, in response, you did

this additional review that you are talking about, and that of the

104, I think it is, or so applicants, that less than 20 were then eligible based on the additional criteria that was put forth as part of

your review.

Mr. FLORES. Yes. I had to make a value judgment within those

categories, seeing now who had actually applied, which I felt were

more important than others. Yes, I did.

Mr. PLATTS. More important, or eligible by a certain criteria

being applied?

Mr. FLORES. No. More important based on who was there. I know

this sounds like semantics, but it is really not. I am trying to figure

out, for example, who——

Mr. PLATTS. Let’s take that assumption. I am going to run out

of time here. I guess I am. If I can complete this question, Mr.

Chairman, if that is OK? Thank you.

Let’s take that it wasn’t new criteria, because that was my first

concern, because if there is additional criteria it should have been

out there from the beginning. But assuming it is not new criteria

but just further scrutinizing the applicants, which wasn’t my understanding, I guess in your answers to Mr. Issa’s questions you

said that the panels that did the review—I wasn’t sure why it was

staff versus outside experts to get some additional input—but the

panels that were reviewing were not for worthiness, but just if they

were sound, basically complete.

I guess it doesn’t seem like you gave much weight really to the

panels and their scoring process, because once you had all those

scores you really didn’t weight those scores. You did an additional

review of your own to get who is going to be really provided funds.

I guess I am uncertain of why go through the scoring process,

why have that peer review with all these 25 panels, do that scoring, if it is going to come to you and then you are going to do the

weighting of the 104 applicants as opposed to saying, all right, we

have 104, here is how they scored, maybe I am going to narrow it

to the top 25 and then look at those. But it seems like that is not

what you did. You started over with all 104. I am not sure why you

even go through that scoring process up front.

Mr. FLORES. I did not go through all 104. I confined myself to

around the top 25 percent, top quarter of the different applications

that came in. And it is really very important for the staff. In this

case they are more than competent to go through that. They know

budgets. They know program submissions. They have seen a lot of

these solicitations. They really can do an incredible job in terms of

whether or not the proposal is internally consistent and has a logic

model that works. Those kinds of things are important.

Once I get that, I use that to create a pool. That is where I pull

from. I don’t go just anywhere in the list. I really take that into

consideration.

Mr. PLATTS. So you did, in essence, eliminate the lower threequarters?

Mr. FLORES. Yes, sir.

Mr. PLATTS. OK.

Chairman WAXMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. PLATTS. Will we have another round, Mr. Chairman?

74

Chairman WAXMAN. Yes, if we have time.

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman WAXMAN. Mr. Walz.

Mr. WALZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member, for

extending this courtesy to allow me to come before you today.

Mr. Flores, thank you for being here.

I represent the First District of Minnesota. That includes Winona

State University. At Winona State University, that is where the

National Child Protection Training Center is housed, and the mission of this center is the only federally funded program that has

as its goal the significant reduction if not elimination of child abuse

in the United States, and has a practical, concrete, peer reviewed

plan to achieve this goal. They trained over 10,000 prosecutors, social service workers, teachers in all 50 States across the Nation,

and has been recognized and recognized by the peer review process

as one of your top four grant recipients or, in this process, I guess,

suggestions.

I will have to be quite honest with you. I do have a bias in this.

I am a public school teacher. I started as an elementary, middle

school, and high school teacher, and I am a parent of two small

children. The elimination of child abuse and the cost to this Nation

morally is incalculable. The financial impact of it is estimated

somewhere around $78 billion, as you are well aware, because you

are leading a Department that is No. 1 priority is to address this

issue.

Have you been to Winona State and the National Child Protection Training Center?

Mr. FLORES. I have not, sir.

Mr. WALZ. We will extend you that invitation. Winter is the best

time to come. [Laughter.]

Mr. FLORES. And I am listening to where we are going here.

Chairman WAXMAN. Can you golf in the winter time?

Mr. WALZ. We are listening to the questions here and I understand and I am listening and trying to get a handle on this.

Winona State sent in a letter then after they were denied, after

they were ranked fourth out of all of these, and it said because of

the number of quality of applicants received, the selection process

was highly competitive. A peer review panel reviewed applications

against the criteria set out in the solicitation.

And then they sent back what was wrong or what was right, and

it came back with a list of strengths only. Some things like ‘‘project

offers both innovative approach and advancement of current practices,’’ ‘‘clear connection between goals and objectives desired of the

program in the reduction of child abuse.’’ ‘‘detailed description of

specific program implementation, strategies detailed.’’ And the last

one said this: ‘‘applicant clearly has the organizational capacity and

experience to manage the project.’’ OK.

And I listened to what you are saying, and you said, I have to

make the final determination. It was very specific that child abuse

reduction was one of the criteria that was put out to them. Hundreds and hundreds of hours were put into the application process.

They met all these. And yet, when it came out, you awarded a

grant to Victory Outreach, who said, thank you but we don’t have

the organizational capacity to take the grant and they handed it

75

back. You were told that by the peer review process and you still

awarded the grant.

In retrospect, would it be wise to take some of the suggestions

from the peer review process, like whether they can spend the

money or not?

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Walz, first let me say I am very familiar with

the work that Victor Vieth and the organization do at Winona and

I support it 100 percent. I am a former prosecutor and have done

these kinds of cases, so this is also very important to me as a dad

of both a boy and two girls.

What I will say is this: we had very little funding in this particular pot. The Justice Department administers a number of very

closely related training programs. We have the National Children’s

Alliance, which funds child advocacy centers across the country

which provide very similar training and support. We had awarded

a $700,000 grant to the National District Attorney’s Association,

which is a related entity, as you know. They are associated with

the organization at Winona.

So, based on looking at how much money we were already investing in terms of child protection, child sexual abuse and exploitation, the fact that I had recommended a $700,000 award to

NDAA, I did not feel that we could go ahead and continue to fund

out of a pot of money which was just $8.6 million.

Mr. WALZ. On that line of logic, though, it brings me back to the Best Friends. You went ahead and offered Best Friends $1 million

out of this, even though they were far lower, 80th or something,

out of this group, even though the Bush administration had put

$213 million previously into this. So the argument is we are already funding the child abuse things, there is no more need for

this, whatever. That is a tough argument to make when you went

ahead and funded one that the Bush administration said was fully

funded and you went ahead and gave them more anyway.

I am trying to understand. I guess my process comes to what

many of the Members are saying here. Are we paying those panels

to review this, because I would like to have the IG look at this, because if those panels are totally disregarded and the hundreds of

hours that are spent by people out in there, we are wasting taxpayer money.

My problem is on the criteria of this. If this is going to be that

Administrator Flores is going to decide, put that out in the grant

application. Put down whatever you want, but at the end of the day

Administrator Flores will decide. That may not be what I agree

with, but at least that is going to be a fair and honest answer on

this, because I see no reason. It was specifically directed to address

child abuse, and now you are saying it was a pot of money and we

moved it around.

They, in their best faith effort at Winona State University and

Victor Vieth, did everything the grant asked. Their peer review

process said you did everything that we asked. Others that didn’t

do that and couldn’t spend the money were awarded the grant, and

I am trying to wrap my mind around this. I am not here to debate

with my colleagues the merits of the Golf Association, which I fully

think does what they say they are going to do, nor the Boys and

Girls Clubs, but, as the chairman has said, there is a very interestVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:40 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\47523.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
76

ing defense of arbitrary earmarking going on from people in this

room. That doesn’t make any sense to me if we are trying to

streamline focus.

As I read to you again, this is the only one you fund that has

a practical, concrete peer reviewed plan to achieve this.

And you said at the end, Mr. Flores, you are just trying to make

sense of how this all fits together in the criteria of what you are

doing. Are you doing that through qualitative analysis, or how are

you coming up with what fits in the overall plan?

Chairman WAXMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Do you want to respond to that?

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Walz, Congressman, I do take into consideration

not just information that is subjective, but we have a substantial

amount of hard data in terms of the different programs that we

evaluate. We do a substantial amount of data collection in our office. We fund that. So it is not a question of my not being aware

of the utility and the importance.

But I would say again that the Department, in particular my office, funds a substantial arm the of child abuse and neglect work.

This is not something that is not important to me. I certainly hear

the agitation in your voice, and your heartfelt feeling that I made

a bad decision.

Chairman WAXMAN. Mr. Flores, I am going to have to interrupt

you because we are running out of time and we want to close out

the hearing and give each side an opportunity to make further

comments.

I want to point out that you said you restricted yourself to the

top quarter, and yet Best Friends is not even in the top 50 percent.

You state in your testimony you believe you awarded these

grants in a transparent and good faith manner, but that is not

what we have heard from other officials at the Department of Justice. We talked to five current and former officials, including Civil

Service program managers, career supervisors, and even a Bush

administration appointee, and every single one of them came to the

opposite conclusion.

Let me give you an example. We interviewed one of your program managers who served as a peer reviewer on this solicitation,

and we asked her whether the process was transparent. She said

no. We asked whether it was fair, and she said absolutely not. And

we asked her whether it served the taxpayers’ interests, and she

said no it does not.

We also interviewed your Associate Administrator, Jeff

Slowitowski, someone with 18 years of experience who supervised

the peer review process. He was familiar with other Justice Department funding streams. Here is what he said, ‘‘whatever factors you

are going to use to weigh and sort out the pool should be very

clearly produced in the solicitation so that everyone understands

that.’’ When we asked him whether he thought the process was fair

or transparent he said no.

We also interviewed your superior, the Assistant Attorney General for Justice programs, Regina Schofield, and, like you, she was

a Senate-confirmed Presidential appointee. She told us, ‘‘you can’t

create categories after grants have been received, because there is

no transparency in the process.’’ She said it is not fair to the grantVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:40 Mar 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\47523.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
77

ees, and she said you did not have candor or clarity in your process. She said, ‘‘I am for candor and clarity, especially when dealing

with the people’s money, and that did not happen and I am upset

that it did not happen.’’

We wanted to interview your chief of staff, Michele Dekonty, but

she refused to answer our questions and invoked the fifth amendment against self-incrimination.

Mr. Flores, it seems that you are the only person at the Department of Justice who thinks your process was fair, transparent, and

served the interest of the taxpayers.

I am not asking you to respond, but I just want to make that as

my closing comment and will be pleased to receive comments from

you further in the record, but I do think that is important to set

all of that out.

We have a unanimous consent request that two letters be submitted to the record, one that I sent to Mr. Davis and the other

that he sent to me. Without objection, that will be the order.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you.

[The information referred to follows:]

78

79

80

81

82

83

Chairman WAXMAN. I would like to now turn it over to Mr. Davis

for any closing comments.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Mr. Chairman, just a couple sentences.

Mr. Platts wanted one clarifying question, if we could do that very

quickly.

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, ranking

member.

Just a followup, Mr. Flores. In getting to how you did the scoring

and how you took it, you said your second review was taking, in

essence, the top 25 percent. The applicant that I have been contacted by was scored first in their panel and 87.5 on the score, and

I guess I don’t understand how you are saying you took the top 25

percent when five of those that were funded were ranked 47, 42,

33, 53, and 26, that being the only one that would be in the top

25 percent.

If you took the top 25 percent, how did four of those others that

were way out of the top 25 percent make that second cut, and especially when they were ranked in their panels, one was No. 5 in a

panel, one was No. 6 in the panel? How do you reconcile that if you

took the top 25 percent? And you said you give great weight to the

staff reviews, because they are the ones who are administering

these programs.

Mr. FLORES. Congressman, do you have a copy of the decision

memo? Is that what you are looking at? I just want to refer you

to some parts of that. If you have a copy of that, what you will see

is that I was referring to the top. Ultimately they fell into the top

20 percent of peer review scores, not the actual out of 100 they

were 50 or 47. I was going by the scores.

That is what is really relevant, not the number where they fit

in, because conceivably they could have all gotten scores of 98, 99,

97, and they would have all been clustered at the top. We still

would have had to make some kind of decision.

The point that I would make is that, again, I had to ask questions once I looked at the top-scoring pool of applicants. So yes, if

you take a look at the decision memo I actually made sure that the

specific peer review score was part of each of the award recommendations so that there would be no confusion over what the

score was that each of those organizations received.

Chairman WAXMAN. We are going to run out of time here.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Let me just make one quick point, because we have to go vote. No. 1 is that the scores were different

scorers, so you had one person scoring under one criteria or another, and you are comparing almost apples to oranges when you

look at the score because you have different people with different

criteria, and some are more lenient than others scoring.

I would just note thank you very much.

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Mr. Administrator. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. There is no indication here that any laws

were broken or any regulations. What we have is a disagreement,

obviously, among grantors, grantees, and Members—this is why we

fight over earmarks the same way—over some of your decisions. I

may or may not agree with the decisions, but I think you have, at

least to my satisfaction, explained why you made them.

84

Just one quick clarifying note. The Assistant Attorney General,

Regina Schofield, her program was funded way down, the Native

American Children, but you funded that, but she had the ability to

overrule your decision, did she not, if she didn’t like it?

Mr. FLORES. Yes.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. And in her testimony she never said

there were any violations of law or regulations, just a disagreement

on these, and she chose not to overrule. So I just add that.

Mr. Waxman, thank you for being at this hearing.

Mr. Flores, thank you. You have acquitted yourself well. Thank

you.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to speak but just to ask

that, considering the scope of this hearing, it certainly should open

Pandora’s Box to look at whether or not in the future we regulate

grant writing in a way that would prevent this kind of discretionary in the absence of some sort of review process, so I would

hope the chairman would look at the broader picture and hold a

followup hearing on how we could improve Government.

Chairman WAXMAN. I think you have raised a very good question. If we are going to have awards granted on merit and there

is a process for merit, then that should dictate the selection, maybe

with some discretion but grants should be based on merit. If they

are based on the whims of the people in charge, then we ought to

clarify that, but the Congress ought to look it over to see whether

we think it makes sense for the American people.

That concludes our hearing. We again thank Mr. Flores for being

here. We stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

Æ