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

71–054 PDF 20112

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 2, 2011 

Serial No. 112–146 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BEN QUAYLE, Arizona 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

[Vacant] 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Majority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas, Vice-Chairman 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

[Vacant] 

CAROLINE LYNCH, Chief Counsel 

BOBBY VASSAR, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

NOVEMBER 2, 2011 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Louie Gohmert, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Vice-Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security .......................................................................... 4 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 6 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Laurie Robinson, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice 

Programs, U.S. Department of Justice 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 9 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Response to Questions for the Record from the U.S. Department of Justice ..... 36 

(1) 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Louie 

Gohmert (Vice-Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Sensenbrenner, Gohmert, Goodlatte, 

Chaffetz, Gowdy, Amodei, Scott, Conyers, Cohen, Pierluisi, Chu, 

and Quigley. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Caroline Lynch, Subcommittee Chief 

Counsel; Harold Damelin, Counsel; Allison Rose, Professional Staff 

Member; Sarah Allen, Counsel; Arthur Radford Baker, Counsel; 

Lindsay Hamilton, Clerk; (Minority) Aaron Hiller, Counsel; and 

Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff Member. 

Mr. GOHMERT. The Committee will come to order. Welcome to 

oversight hearing on the United States Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. I would especially like to welcome our witness. Thank you for being here, Ms. Robinson, and for everyone 

else that joined us here today. 

I am also joined today by distinguished Ranking Member of the 

Subcommittee Bobby Scott and by the most recent Chairman emeritus John Conyers from Michigan. 

At this time we will begin the hearing. This is an oversight hearing of Office of Justice Programs at the U.S. Department of Justice, 

which obviously you have most recently headed since January 

2009. I know this is not the first time that you were there as head 

of OJP when you previously served in that role during the Clinton 

administration from 1993 to 2000. With almost a decade of experience as the head of OJP, you are surely equipped to engage in discussion on the various OJP programs. 

Since it was established in 1984, OJP has been the Department’s 

primary grant for awarding agency through six separate program 

offices and bureaus. OJP provides grants intended to improve the 

company’s capacity to prevent and control crime, improve the 

criminal and juvenile systems, increase knowledge about crime and 

related issues, and assist crime victims. 

From October 2008 through September 2011, OJP made over 

17,000 grant awards totaling $9.8 billion in the criminal justice 

2 

field, including Federal, State, local and tribal law enforcement 

agencies and private community organizations. OJP currently manages over 50 different grant programs. While a number of these 

programs serve a useful purpose within the entire criminal justice 

context, in these very difficult economic times where the Federal 

Government must drastically reduce its spending we simply cannot 

continue to allocate resources without verifying that they are being 

used as effectively as possible and that it is for a legitimate Federal 

role. 

To that end we need to ensure that the programs we are funding 

are accomplishing their intended purpose, that the programs are 

still necessary and not outdated, and we are not funding multiple 

programs with the same intended purpose, that there is adequate 

communication between various grant making offices so we are effectively leveraging our resources, that grant recipients are not 

using funds in a wasteful or fraudulent manner, that OJP is capable of and is in fact engaging in effective, aggressive grant oversight, and that the roles are our constitutional responsibility of 

Congress. 

It is in this context that we examine OJP’s performance. Both 

the Justice Department’s Inspector General and the GAO have 

identified what I consider to be a number of significant problems 

with respect to OJP. For example, in October 2010 GAO found the 

performance measures being used by OJP to assess whether the 

goals of the Byrne JAG program were being met and were not appropriate and needed to be revised. GAO also found that OJP did 

not have a process in place to validate the integrity of the Byrne 

JAG recipients’ self purported performance data. 

Given this Byrne JAG program is one of the largest grant programs at DOJ, this is a serious problem that must be addressed. 

It is essential that we are able to determine the effectiveness of 

OJP’s grant programs in deciding whether to continue funding 

them. 

I hope you will explain why it took GAO to point out that these 

serious program deficiencies exist at OJP. 

I am concerned by the IG’s findings regarding OJP’s oversight of 

the Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative. Since 2002 it has 

been OJP’s responsibility to oversee this reimbursement program. 

In a 2008 report the IG was very critical of OJP oversight efforts. 

OJP promised to implement the changes recommended by the IG, 

but when the IG came back 2 years later, 2010, to review how OJP 

was doing, they continued to find major weaknesses in the management and oversight of the program. 

Specifically the IG noted that there were red flags that were 

missed by OJP. The IG found that $12.3 million, or 85 percent, of 

the reimbursements allowed by OJP were unallowable or 

unsupportable. An 85 percent error rate is simply not acceptable 

when handling taxpayer money. We look forward to hearing your 

explanation on why OJP could not properly manage this program 

and what is being done to correct the problem. 

Additionally, GAO and IG reports have highlighted a serious lack 

of coordination between DOJ and other agencies, including the Department of the Interior, regarding how Federal money should be 

spent. These reports also show serious violations of grant requireVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:48 Dec 07, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\110211\71054.000 HJUD1 PsN: 71054
3 

ments by the recipients, ranging from very significant amounts of 

unsupported or unallowable expenditures, failure to monitor subgrantees, the sloppy or nonexistent recordkeeping, and failure to 

file required reports adequately in a timely manner. In some cases 

grantees were found to have misused millions of dollars. 

These stories, while never acceptable, are even less so in today’s 

climate. OJP is currently responsible for over 14,000 active grants 

and these IG reports all issued fairly recently cause me to wonder 

what grant monitoring procedures OJP has in place that allowed 

these type of abuses to occur. 

As we move forward, these problems need to be addressed and 

corrected during the life of the grant, not after the grant funds 

have been expended and the IG comes in to do an audit. In this 

regard there are serious concerns about OJP’s high risk grantee 

list. While this list in place since only 2009 is presumably intended 

to help monitor grantees who may be misusing Federal funds, it 

appears that in reality the list does very little. Even if an OJP 

grantee finds its way onto this list they are still permitted to receive additional grants while on the list and can have funds from 

any current grants disbursed as well. 

In addition, OJP has never referred any high risk grantee for 

suspension or disbarment. This strikes me as a sign of very weak 

grant oversight at best. 

The acting IG testified this past June before another House Subcommittee on the topic of Federal grant program oversight. In the 

course of her testimony she noted that their audit work has continued to identify areas where the Department could further improve 

its management of grants, particularly in terms of the Department’s processes for awarding grants and its oversight of grantees. 

The IG has also suggested that OJP along with the COPS office 

and Office of Violence Against Women needed to be more responsive in addressing outstanding audit recommendations to resolve 

questioned costs from audits or grantees. The IG noted that in 

some instances the Department takes years to implement an audit 

recommendation. These are also serious issues pointed out by the 

IG, and we would like to know what you have done to address 

them. 

In addition to these grant management and oversight issues, we 

are also very concerned about the IG’s findings in a recent audit 

of Department of Justice Conference planning and food and beverage costs. The IG examined 10 department conferences, four of 

which were put on by the OJP. Regarding these four conferences, 

the IG found that OJP spent over $530,000 for an event planner. 

Five of the other six conferences examined by the IG were put 

on internally and did not even use an event planner. Why did OJP 

need to hire an event planner when that is clearly not the norm 

at DOJ? 

Three of these OJP conferences held in Palm Springs, California, 

a lovely city, but nonetheless the event planner used by OJP came 

from Anchorage, Alaska and was awarded the contract without the 

benefit of an open solicitation. We would like to know what was so 

special about this event planner that the contractor had to be sole 

sourced. 

4 

The IG questioned many of the costs associated with the event 

planner. For example, the event planner held a conference planning meeting at the direction of OJP for 36 people in Palm Springs, 

California for about a year before the conference took place. This 

was done despite the fact that the contract documents stated that 

such a face-to-face meeting was not necessary in order to put on 

the conference. It appears to me this was a total waste of taxpayer 

dollars. 

As we move forward we must spend our money wisely for only 

those OJP programs proven to be effective. Additionally, your office 

has an obligation to ensure that the grant recipients are complying 

with the conditions of the grants and spending the money they received appropriately. 

I look forward to hearing your testimony today, and with that 

would yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Gohmert. Good morning, I am 

pleased to join you this morning for this very important oversight 

hearing on the Office of Justice Programs and am pleased to hear 

from the Assistant Attorney General Laurie Robinson, who you appropriately introduced as a very well qualified and effective leader 

in the Department of Justice. 

As you know, the Office of Justice Programs is charged with 

working in partnership with the justice community to identify the 

most pressing crime related challenges confronting the justice system and to provide information, training, coordination and innovative strategies and approaches for addressing these challenges. 

The Office of Justice Programs is comprised of six different components, including the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of 

Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office for 

Victims of Crimes, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention, and the Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking Office. 

Because of limited time I want to focus on the area of juvenile 

justice and delinquency prevention, and perhaps get to other areas 

during the questioning. The juvenile justice system in this country 

needs help. In any given night in the United States almost 10,000 

children are held in adult jails and prisons where they are particularly vulnerable to physical and sexual victimization because of 

their size and youth. 

The Centers for Disease Control has added its voice to the chorus 

of researchers who have reported that after release children who 

are incarcerated in adult prisons commit more crimes and more serious crimes than children with similar histories held in juvenile 

facilities. And while juvenile facilities are better than adult facilities, generally there are far too many problems even in the juvenile 

facility. Nearly 100,000 children, some as young as 10 years old, 

are confined to juvenile detention in residential facilities, many of 

which are plagued with harsh and abusive conditions. 

Just last year the Bureau of Justice Statistics pursuant to the 

Prison Rape Elimination Act reported that 12 percent of juveniles 

in publicly and privately run facilities reported incidences of sexual 

abuse primarily by facility staff. 

The Department of Justice can make an immediate critical difference of youth custody by promulgating a final rule to enforce the 

5 

national standards to prevent, detect and respond to prison rates 

that would require the removal of youth under 18 from adult jails 

and prisons. I would like to hear what is happening to those rules 

and regulations. 

The over representation of minority youth continues to be a challenge. Additionally, African American youth are confined in facilities at a rate over three times that over White youth. In addition, 

minority youth more likely to be sent to public rather than private 

correctional facilities and are more likely to be housed in the most 

secure facilities. The Federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention Act of 1974 requires that States determine whether the 

proportion of minorities in confinement exceeds their proportion in 

the population. And if there is such over representation, States 

must demonstrate that they are appropriately addressing that 

problem. So I would like to know where we are in that regard. 

Of course one huge concern is the proposals for reductions of juvenile justice funding. One of the concerns is that the core requirements of the 1974 JJDPA act may be in jeopardy if States do not 

receive enough funding to make it worth their while to comply with 

the requirements because the sanction for violation is reduced 

funding. If there is not enough funding they will not have the appropriate incentives to comply. 

I would like to know—one kind of ongoing problem is a question 

of when we can expect an administrator to be named to the Office 

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. I find it troubling 

that 3 years into the Administration there has been no one confirmed to lead this Federal home for juvenile justice and to be 

speaking out on behalf of our children. 

Despite the existence of evidence based and proven programs 

who are seeing funding for them cut in the budget situation we are 

facing today, clearly this is penny wise but pound foolish given that 

many of these programs save much more money than they cost in 

avoiding criminal justice and social welfare spending. 

That is why I introduced the Youth PROMISE Act which I know 

the Attorney General is supportive of, and to provide this kind of 

evidence based and cost saving program and to get young people 

on the right track and keep them on the right track. 

I am very pleased to see that there are positive steps that have 

been taken on behalf of our youth, particularly with the National 

Forum on Youth Violence Prevention and the Defending Childhood 

Initiative. I was also pleased to articipate in the OJJDP national 

conference held October 12th through 14th, and thrilled that over 

3,000 people who registered for that program at their own expense 

were able to participate. 

So I look forward, Madam Assistant Attorney General, to your 

testimony and to continued work on how we can get young people 

on the right track and keep them on the right track. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Scott. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce today’s witness. Laurie Robinson has served as—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Pardon me, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Absolutely, the Chairman emeritus, John Conyers 

of Michigan. 

6 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won’t take long, but 

I wanted to join in welcoming our distinguished witness, Attorney 

Robinson. Just to refresh the memory of some of the Members on 

the Subcommittee, the program of the National Forum on Youth 

Violence was conducted in six cities and I am very proud to say 

that Detroit was one of those cities that was visited. And although 

the Deputy Attorney General wasn’t there, Attorney Tom Abt, her 

assistant, was in Detroit. And we had an incredibly meaningful 

sight. They met in my Congressional district at the Boys and Girls 

Club, and the mayor of the City of Detroit, Dave Bing, was there. 

The U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, Ms. Barbara McQuade, was there. Michael Strautmanis, a deputy in the 

White House, was there himself. And they were in total at five 

other cities dealing with this question of youth and violence prevention. After the hearing they made tours around the city. This 

forum was also in Chicago, Boston, San Jose, Salinas, and Memphis. And this was all last month. We think this commitment to 

attending this question of youth violence in urban areas is of incredible importance. We wanted to thank you for the work that is 

being done in the Department of Justice in that regard. 

Now the budget constraints that have limited you so far are restraints that have come from the U.S. Congress. And so I wish we 

could reiterate and I hope that you will make clear, indeed if you 

have to submit additional materials—just what the funding picture 

is—that we need to be appreciative of to know how to deal with the 

budgetary issues in your department within DOJ. 

And finally, I just have to recall to Judge Gohmert, our Chair 

today, that some of the problems that he described took place during the years 2005 to 2008, a time in which I don’t think you 

were—well, I don’t know where you were then, but I know you 

weren’t in the position that you are now with the responsibilities 

that require you to come before our Committee. But under your 

leadership I do know the Office of Justice Programs has begun to 

correct itself and move forward, and it is in that sense that I join 

the Chairman and the Ranking Member Bobby Scott in welcoming 

you to this hearing today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. We appreciate that. I certainly noted 

that some of these problems arose before 2008, that certainly 

wouldn’t be your responsibility. And of course one of the things 

that endeared me so to the current Republican leadership is my 

constant pointing out of problems that occurred on our watch. It 

might be noted that I am actually Vice-Chairman of this Committee. It may have something to do with that. 

But anyway we appreciate your being here today. Ms. Robinson 

served as Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs since 2009. Ms. Robinson has previously served as Assistant Attorney General from 1993 until early 

2000. From 2004 to 2009 Ms. Robinson served as the Director of 

the Master of Science Program in the University OF Pennsylvania’S Department of Criminology. Between 2001 and 2009 she also 

served as a Distinguished Senior Scholar in the university’s Jerry 

Lee Center of Criminality and as Executive Director of its Forum 

on Crime and Justice. 

7 

Prior to joining the Department of Justice in 1993, Ms. Robinson 

was the Director of the ABA’s, American Bar Association’s, Section 

of Criminal Justice for 14 years, where she founded the ABA’s Juvenile Justice Center. Ms. Robinson is a graduate of Brown University. 

She has a written statement that will be entered into the record 

in its entirety. We ask that you would summarize that statement 

in 5 minutes or less and appreciate again your being here. We 

know that the pay is not that good for witnesses coming before 

Congress. And for anybody who doesn’t know, there is no pay. 

Anyway I do now recognize Ms. Robinson, please. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE LAURIE ROBINSON, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Ms. ROBINSON. Mr. Gohmert, thank you so much, and Ranking 

Member Scott and the distinguished Members of the Subcommittee 

for having me here today. 

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to discuss with you 

the priorities in the work of the Office of Justice Programs. 

OJP’s mission is to increase public safety and improve the fair 

administration of justice across America through innovative programs and leadership. The resources we provide are critically important, especially in challenging times when public safety professionals face shrinking budgets. 

When I was confirmed 2 years ago I announced three goals: First 

to support State, local and tribal criminal and juvenile justice practitioners through innovative partnerships; second, to expand our 

base of knowledge about what works to address crime and better 

communicate that to the field; and, third, to address the issues, Mr. 

Gohmert, that you had raised about our obligations as stewards of 

Federal funds. That is so important, and I can report on progress 

in each of these areas. 

Tight budgets at every level of government have clearly made it 

harder for jurisdictions to tackle their crime problems alone. Since 

returning to OJP I have sought to expand partnership with our 

stakeholders, and our work has paid off. Both Mr. Scott and Mr. 

Conyers have mentioned our National Forum on Youth Violence 

Prevention. This is a cooperative effort across levels of government 

and across Federal agencies to address youth and gang violence. 

The investment of Federal funds in the forum is modest. It is not 

about new spending, but it is about leveraging existing resources 

and making those public dollars go further. 

I am also proud of our progress building our base of evidence and 

getting information about what works out to the field. Last November the Attorney General appointed an 18-member Science Advisory Board to help guide these efforts. And in 2009, I launched an 

OJP-wide Evidence Integration Initiative to improve our knowledge 

about effective practices and then get that information out to practitioners on the front line. 

As part of that initiative, in June we launched a new Web site 

called CrimeSolutions.gov. It is a ‘‘what works clearinghouse’’ with 

more than 150 programs assessed from research for their effectiveness. And next year we open a State and local help desk. It is a 

8 

Diagnostic Center to serve as a ‘‘one stop shop’’ to help those implementing evidence based approaches. 

And finally, we are working hard as a top priority to fulfill the 

trust the American taxpayer has placed in us to manage public 

funds. During my confirmation hearing I said that addressing 

waste, fraud and abuse would be a top priority. So we have been 

actively working to strengthen internal controls. 

As you said, Mr. Gohmert, we currently manage almost 14,000 

grants, totaling almost $10 billion. Yet we consistently exceed our 

statutory monitoring requirements. Last year we monitored more 

than twice the amount required by law, and the Department’s Inspector General has pointed out the positive steps we are now taking to improve our grant management practices. Earlier this year 

she called our work—in testimony before Congress—she called our 

work to implement the Recovery Act ‘‘extraordinary’ and that is an 

unusual term for the IG to use. 

We have also found ways to minimize cost. In fiscal year 2011 

we, within OJP, cut staff travel expenses by 39 percent from the 

prior year. And we saved $2 million through freezes or hiring promotions and staff training, again $2 million, and reassessed our IT 

contracts to save $5 million. 

We have specifically taken a number of steps to limit costs related to training and conferences for the field. Even before the IG’s 

September report on conference costs we had already taken measures to limit spending in this area—even before the report came 

out. And since it came out, we have taken additional steps, including a new policy I announced October 21 prohibiting all food and 

beverage costs under OJP grants and contracts, except in the most 

extraordinary circumstances. 

While we have acted aggressively to reduce these costs, I think 

it is also important to remember that training conferences for the 

field are indispensable to meet our statutory mission of sharing information and providing assistance to the criminal and juvenile 

justice field. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, can the witness be given a couple 

additional of minutes, please? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Without objection, please continue. 

Ms. ROBINSON. I am about to wrap up. 

Mr. Gohmert, OJP’s effectiveness and credibility I think depend 

on our ability to account for the dollars we administer. I take that 

responsibility very seriously and look forward to working with you 

and the Subcommittee to ensure our programs meet the high 

standards you expect and the American people deserve. 

Thank you so much, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Robinson follows:] 

9 


DOJ-1.eps

ilepatiment of l.fustite 

STATEMENT OF 

THE HONORABLE LAURIE ROBINSON 

ASSIST ANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

REGARDING 

OVERSIGHT OF THE OFFICE OF .JUSTICE PROGRAMS 

PRESENTED 

NOVEMBER 2, 2011 
10 


DOJ-2.eps

Statement of 

The Honorable Laurie Robinson 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Justice Programs 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrodsm, and Homeland Security 

Committee on the .Judiciary 

United States House of Representatives 

Regarding Oversight of the Office of Justice Programs 

November 2, 2011 

Chainnan Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member Scott, and distinguished Members of 

the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting mc to speak with you today. I am pleased to 

have this opportunity to discuss the priorities and activities of the Office of Justice 

Programs (OJP). 

In addition to serving as the current Assistant Attorney General ofOJP, I have 

spent a great part of my career involved, both directly and indirectly, in supporting its 

mission. My first job in criminal justice was working on a grant-funded project from 

OlP's predecessor agency, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA), in 

the 1970s. In the 1990s, I served as OJP's Assistant Attorney General under President 

Clinton and Attorney General Reno. Now, I am proud to serve again as head ofOlP 

under President Obama and Attorney General Holder. 

OJP's mission is to increase public safety and improve the fair administration of 

justicc across Amcl;ca through innovative lcadership and programs. This mission fulfills 
11 


DOJ-3.eps

two important components of the overall mission of the Department of Justice, namely, 

providing federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime and ensuring fair and 

impartial administration of justice for all Americans. At OJP, a key goal is to emphasize 

close and productive relationships with a broad array of stakeholders in the criminal and 

juvenile justice fields. 

This mutual support, and the resources available from OIP to bolster om criminal 

and juvenile justice systems and victim services, are of critical importance in these 

challenging economic times. Across the country, public safety professionals - jj'om law 

enforcement officers and prosecutors to corrections ofiicials and victim service providers 

- have been contending with shrinking budgets that threaten their jobs and, ultimately, 

the peace and security of our homes and communities. To be sure, crime rates nationally 

are down, but departments across the country have suffered, or are facing, massive layoils, when homeland secUlity duties and other 21 st-century crime challenges arc 

multiplying the responsibilities oflaw enforcement agencies, when line-of-duty deaths 

and violent assaults on law enforcement officers are on the rise, and when states are 

confronted with the difficult dilemma o[ addressing high prison populations _. and 

corrections costs - while ensuring the safety of citizens. 

DUling my confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 

October 2009, I articulated three overarching goals for my tenure at OJP to respond to the 

challenges facing the public safety field. First, I underscored the urgency, particularly in 

thcsc light cconomic times, of supporting state, local, and tribal criminal and juvenile 

2 
12 


DOJ-4.eps

justice practitioners through innovative partnerships based on shared responsibilities. 

Second, J emphasized the importance ofOJP's role in expanding our base of knowledge 

about what works and, perhaps even more important, in communicating that knowledge 

to the field in a way that will be most useful. And third, I highlighted OJP's critical 

responsibili(vas a steward ojfederal jimds and pledged to spare no effort in ensuring 

accountability of the resources entrusted to us. J am pleased with the progress we have 

made in each of these areas over the last two years and, in particular, we have 

aggressively worked, as a high priority, to address waste, traud, and abuse in our 

management of government funds. 

Building Partnerships 

In the current climate of fiscal restraint and uncertainty - when scaled-back 

budgets jeopardize even the most basic civic functions, and front-line law enforcement 

officers wonder about the future of their jobs - our state and local partners depend on our 

leadership and our willingness to support them in their work. Because the need for 

discipline at the fedcrallevcl is every bit as great as it is at other levels, we do not have 

the luxury of coming to the aid of our pat1ners with generous financial resources. Our 

limited federal funds are best spent helping states, localities, and tribes do what no one 

state or locality can do on its own. We serve them best when we work with them to study 

and understand their problems, join with them in brainstomling solutions and developing 

strategies, coordinate our own response at the federalleve! - across agencies - and walk 

beside them as they carry out their work. [n other words, we arc most effective when we 

3 
13 


DOJ-5.eps

are a true partner. 

Since returning to OJP in 2009, 1 have sought to broaden our definition of 

partnership and to expand our base of partners. Within my Erst months, I held several 

listening sessions with major stakeholder groups to gauge the issues of greatest concern 

to the field and to hear feedback on how OJP can best help to address those issues. I also 

convened a meeting with private foundations involved in crime andjustice efforts to 

explore areas of potential public-private cooperation. Finally, we have been working 

diligently to coordinate our efforts with other federal agencies whose mission and 

activities coincide with ours. 

One excellent product of our efIolts is our National F omm for Youth Violence 

Prevention. This intergovernmental, cross-disciplinary partnership brings together local 

and federallcaders, law enforcement oflicials, educators, public health providers, 

community and faith-based representatives, parents, and young people to share ideas 

about effective and cost-efficient ways to prevent youth and gang violence. The Fomm's 

cmphasis is on leveraging current spending to make scarcc public dollars go further, 

rather than on new spending. Thus far, six cities - Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Memphis, 

Salinas, and San Jose - have developed and are implementing comprehensive violence 

prevention plans using multidisciplinary partnerships, data-driven strategies, and a 

balanced approach aimed at reducing violent crime, improving opportunities for youth, 

and encouraging innovation. A number of additional cities have asked to participate in 

the Forum, and the Presidcnt's budget request includes 56 million to cxpand this 

4 
14 


DOJ-6.eps

innovative net\vork of partnerships from 6 to a total of 18 cities. 

Another example is our work in the area of prisoner reentry, which is a major 

domestic policy priority of the Dcpartmcnt of Justice and the Obama Administration. In 

January, the Attorney General convened the tirst meeting of the Federallnteragency 

Reentry Council, which included seven Cabinet-level secretmies, the Commissioner of 

thc Social Sccurity Administration, the Dircctor of thc Office o[ National Drug Control 

Policy, the Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, the Executive Director 

of the White House Ollice of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, and the Chair 

of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The purpose o[the Council is 

to coordinate federal reentry efforts in service of three goals: enhancing community 

safety by reducing recidivism and revictimization; helping those returning from prison to 

become productive citizens; and saving taxpayer dollars by lowering the direct mld 

collateral costs o[ incarceration. 

OJP is leading the staff-level effort - which now includes 18 different federal 

agencies and is making excellent progress on the Council's goals. Among our 

accomplishments thus far is the development of a number of reentTY "MythBusters," 

w'hich clarify existing federal policies that atfect formerly incarcerated individuals and 

their fmnilies. The goal of these "MythBusters" is to help correct misinfonnation in areas 

such as public housing access, eligibility for benefits, and Medicaid suspension, among 

many others, that often impedes the ability of former inmates to reintegrate and to turn 

away [rom crime. 

5 
15 


DOJ-7.eps

Expanding Knowledge 

My second goal on returning to OJP was to build upon the momentum generated 

in recent years by the growth in the body of criminal and juvenile justice research and, 

speci fically, to take the next important step of communicating distilled information to 

practitioners and polieymakers who, after all, make the decisions that most directly affect 

community safety. The development and dissemination of knowledge about what works 

in addressing crime is a critical Hxleral mission and one that our state, local, and tribal 

partners depend on us to pcr[ornl. This [unction was outlined most clearly in 1967 by 

President Johnson's Crime Commission, which called for a strong federal role in 

supporting research and gathering statistics. I Retlecting the bipartisan support for this 

goal, that principle was reinforced 14 years later by the Attorney General's Task Force on 

Violent Crime under President Reagan, which said, without dissent, that "the federal 

government has a unique responsibility to conduct research on criminal justice issues" 

and "to test and evaluate ... programs rigorously.,,2 

With few exceptions, local jurisdictions do not have the capital to make 

investments in criminal justice research. In his hudget request to Congress this year - as 

he did last year - the President has proposed a three-percent set-aside of all OJP grant and 

reimbursement funds to be used for research, evaluation, and statistical purposes. Last 

1 Tile Challenge oj' Crime in a Free Societ)': A Report by the President's Commission on Law Enj'orcement 

and Administration oj' Justice. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington. D.C. February 1967. 

2 Auorney General's Task Force 011 Violent Crillle, Filial Report, U.S, Department of Justice, Washington, 

D,C. August 1981. 

6 
16 


DOJ-8.eps

November, the Attomey General appointed an 18-member Science Advisory Board to 

guide the efforts of OJP in developing evidence-based policies and programs. The Board 

held its inaugural meeting in January and met again in June. And last year, the Senate 

confmned the appointments of two respected scientists, John Laub and Jim Lynch, to 

lead the National Institute of Justice (NIl) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). 

These actions retlect a strong effort on the part of the Administration and the DepaJiment 

to build the credibility and integrity ofOJP's science functions. 

Strengthening the science behind our work is an all-important first step. The next 

step, just as sib'1lificant, is applying that knowledge. Without question, our knowledge 

about what works - in areas such as "hot spots" policing and swift and certain sanctions -

and what doesn't - Scared Straight and the early Dmg Abuse Resistance Education 

(D.A.R.E.) model come to mind - is expanding quickly. Regrettably, however, the 

growth in the body of evidence has outpaced our ability to make that evidence readily 

available to policymakers and practitioners. 

Shortly after my retum to OJP, I launched an agency-wide Evidence Integration 

Initiative designed to assess our understanding about what works in reducing and 

preventing crime and determine how to usc that information to fight crime more 

effectively. The goal of this effort is to get this infonnation out to the field in a 

comprehensible, practical fonnat. We have already begun to explore strategies tor 

sharing research about gangs and children exposed to violence so that law enforcement 

dcpartments and othcr justice and human service systcm agencies can make decisions 

7 
17 


DOJ-9.eps

based on the best infonl1ation available. And in June, 1 was very pleased to announce the 

launch of CrimeSolutions.gov, a new Website with more than 150 programs covering a 

range of topics. These programs all come with a rating for effectiveness, and the hope is 

that the infonl1ation it canies will be of usc to our partncrs in the field. 

I am also pleased that in 2012 OJP will open a State and Local Help Desk and 

Diagnostic Center. The Diagnostic Center is a one-stop shop for state and local leaders 

and agency heads seeking real-time diagnostic assistance and resources to solve public 

safety problems. The Diagnostic Center will operate a hotline, disseminate 

comprehensive training and technical assistance services focused on evidence-based 

practices, and support state and community executives in the implementation of 

evidence-based programs and practices in the field. 

Sound Stewardship of Federal Funds 

The only person to whom OJP owes a greater responsibility than its stakeholders 

is the American citizen and taxpayer. As I know you agree, we must all do our part to 

ensure that taxpayer fl.mds are spent wisely, particularly in light of the difficult economic 

conctitions that so many American families face today. As I said during my confinnation 

testimony, guarding against \\Taste, fraud, and abuse is among my highest priorities. 

Undcr my dircction, OJP has becn working hard to cut costs and ensure proper oversight 

of grant and contractor funds and to administer those funds in the most transparent way 

possible. 

8 
18 


DOJ-10.eps

Despite maintaining programmatic and fiscal responsibility for almost 14,000 

active grants totaling almost $10 billion with limited salary and expense funds, OlP has 

found ways to minimize costs. 111 Fiscal Year 2011, we cUl stalTtravel expenses by 39% 

from the previous year and saved S2 million through freezes on hiring, promotions, 

awards, and training. We also reassessed our Information Technology contracts, 

resulting in nearly S5 million in additional savings. While I am concerned that additional 

cuts could signiticantly impact OlP's ability to serve its constituents and achieve its 

statutory mission, we are committed as an agency to spending taxpayer funds as 

efficicntly as possible. 

Under my direction, OIP has adopted a hard line approach to monitoring and 

oversight of its grantees, implementing agency-wide standard policies, procedures, and 

internal controls. We conduct desk reviews of each of our nearly 14,000 grants. Every 

quarter, all grants are assessed against risk factors to identify those in need of increased 

technical assistance and in-depth monitoring. OJP consistently exceeds its statutory 

requirement to conduct comprehensive monitoring of not less than 10% of total award 

dollars. In fact, in Fiscal Year 2011, we monitored more than twice the amount required 

bylaw. 

The Department's Otlice of Inspector General (OIG), in a report earlier this year 

on the monitoring and oversight ofOJP's Recovery Act and non-Recovery Act programs, 

highlighted many of these improvemcnts and acknowledged the collaborative 

9 
19 


DOJ-11.eps

relationship that OlG and OJP have developed. The Acting Inspector General said in her 

oversight testimony in February that the Department has taken positive steps to improve 

its grant management practices, in particular calling our efforts at OIP to implement the 

Recovery Act "extTaordinary." 

OIP has embraced and aggressively implemented a host of recommendations 

from the OlG's 2009 report, Improving the Grant Management Process. We have 

coordinated with grantees and the OIG to address issues identified in grant audits, and we 

have streamlined our follow-up audit activities, eliminating existing backlogs and 

allowing for more timely resolution of outstanding aLldit recommendations. In Fiscal 

Year 2011, OJ P closed 122 of the 223 open single and OlG grant audit reports, which 

represents a return of S5.3 million to the federal government for unallowable or 

unsupported costs. 

I have instituted efforts to establish policies, procedures, and internal controls to 

ensure sound stewardship, strong programmatic and financial management, and effective 

monitoring and oversight of OIP's grant programs. These controls not only address the 

overall soundness and integrity of the monitoring process but extend to the analysis of 

individual grant and contract line items, including conference costs. 

I firnlly believe that training conferences and on-site technical assistance are 

important and effective ways that OIP conveys information, skills, and knowledge about 

evidcnce-hased practices to its state, local, and tribal law enforcement and criminal 

10 
20 


DOJ-12.eps

justice constituents, and they are indispensable in fostering and strengthening 

collaboration and partnerships, which are critical in these difficult economic times. 

Moreover, OlP's authorizing statutes reflect Congress's intention for training conference 

costs to be used to help OlP achieve its mission. Yet it is imperative and I am finnly 

committed to ensuring - that we make every effort to minimize planning and operational 

costs and ensure that funds spent on travel, lodging, and food and beverages are 

reasonable. Sincc my return to OJP, we havc worked diligently to keep these costs to a 

mllllmum. 

Prior to the recent OIG report on Department of Justice conferences, OIP had 

already taken concrete steps to limit spending in this area and ensure greater transparency 

and scmtiny of conference costs. for instance, before release of the report we had 

already revised our Financial Guide to require that all food and beverage costs fnnded 

under cooperative agreements comply with additional DO] guidelines and added a 

special condition to all cooperative agreements outlining these requirements. In January, 

the Attorney General instructed all components to limit all travel, training, and 

conference spending to essential needs. As a result of tiJcsc efforts, the Department's 

conference spending in the first two quarters of fiscal year 2011 was down by SS.S 

million from the same period the previous year. 

We are also updating our policies to require that all award recipients involved in 

planning OJP conferences separately track and report all costs associated with conference 

planning, including salaries and benefits. We arc requiring strietjustifieation from event 

11 
21 


DOJ-13.eps

planners for travel, lodging, and food and beverage costs. We are improving our process 

for identifying cost-effective training and technical assistance services and building that 

into om selection process for cooperative agreements. And we have significantly limited 

staff participation in conferences and other events, relying as much as possible on vidcoteleconferencing and other means of communication. 

Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman, [ remain committed to strengthening partnerships with our 

stakeholders and sister federal agencies and developing and disseminating knowledge 

about what works to the field. I also believe strongly that our success in fulfilling our 

mission to improve the fair administration of justice - a goal premised on winning the 

public's trust - depends on om ability to account for the funding we are responsible for 

administering. I look forward to working with the Subcommittee to ensure that our 

programs and activities meet the high standards that you expect of us and that the 

American people deserve. 

### 

12 
22 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Ms. Robinson. We now continue with 

5 minutes of questions from each Member. And I reserve my questions for later so we can move on. I yield 5 minutes to Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Robinson, I understand that the Bureau of Justice Statistics is undertaking a study 

of youth in adult court. Only 13 States collect that data today, so 

it is extremely important so we know what is going on. Do you 

have information on this study that you can reveal now or would 

you like—I would like some information on that. Could you do that 

now or for the record? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Mr. Scott, I don’t have that information at this 

time. I know this is an area of very great interest and focus for 

them. But we would be happy to get that information for you for 

the record. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

You talked about stewardship. There was great fanfare about the $16 muffins. Can you tell us what that was about? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, I would be happy to talk to you about the 

steps that we have taken relating to conference costs. First of all, 

the Department of Justice strongly shares the concern of the Inspector General and of all of you, really of all Americans, about 

using tax dollars wisely and the importance of not tolerating wasteful spending. This is something the Department has focused on for 

some time. 

For example, in May of 2009 the Deputy Attorney General issued 

a memo to all of the Department about limiting conference costs. 

And then in January of this year the Attorney General issued a 

memo across the board urging limitations on spending not just in 

the conference area, but relating to staff travel, to training, to a variety of things, and also placed a freeze on hiring. And the savings 

that I noted in my opening statement really derive from the steps 

that we took in response to that. 

Even before the Inspector General report was issued, we took aggressive action at OJP to respond to this area, because we work 

very closely with the IG, and during their work with us in the investigation we were aware of their concerns in working with them. 

I would note that the conferences in the report all took place, as 

Mr. Conyers has alluded to, before I had come to OJP. It doesn’t 

mean it is not an area of concern. 

Mr. SCOTT. Let me ask a more specific question. $16 muffins, is 

it true that that was an absolute miscalculation, that the cost included the room and a lot of other expenses, not just the muffins? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Apparently that is the case. This was not an OJP 

conference, but the IG did issue a retraction on that last week. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Can you tell us the status of the Prison 

Rape Elimination Act regulations as they pertain to juveniles? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, I can tell you the following information. As 

you know, a number of questions were released with the draft regulations that were issued earlier this year. I think there were 64 

questions put out for comment. This is being handled not by OJP 

but by a different part of the Department, and hundreds and hundreds of comments were apparently received in response to those 

64 questions. Those are now under review, as I understand it, by 

the Department. I am told that the final regs will be finished in 

23 

the near future; then they have to go to OMB for final review. I 

have not seen them. I don’t know what is in them. 

Mr. SCOTT. Six cities, as the gentleman from Michigan mentioned, received planning grants under the Promise Neighborhoods. 

Can you tell us what the importance of the planning is before you 

get into a comprehensive program, the value of planning and how 

evaluation and evidence will be considered? Not on evidence based 

in terms of what they do but also evaluation to make sure they are 

effective. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, I think that we have seen in all of these 

community based programs, and this really goes back to the beginning of the LEAA program, which was the predecessor program to 

OJP. As you well know, that comprehensive plan—bringing all parties to the table, all interested multi-disciplinary groups—is the 

way to ensure that programs really can make a difference, because 

having all of the interested parties together with all interests at 

the table and considering all of the data that needs to be on the 

table at the same time, will ensure a data driven approach and will 

also ensure, as you have pointed out, that evaluation is considered 

from the beginning. You can’t really evaluate a program after the 

fact unless you have that in place at the outset. 

Mr. SCOTT. How do you ensure that evaluations will actually 

take place? Is that part of the grant process, that you have to have 

an evaluation of your program after the fact? 

Ms. ROBINSON. With the Promise Neighborhoods I don’t know if 

that is built in, but it should be because that is something throughout the Administration that we are trying to ensure. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Scott. At this time we will—Mr. 

Amodei, are you ready to ask questions? 

Mr. AMODEI. I yield my time back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. Then Mr. Conyers for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Judge Gohmert. I appreciate your coming before the Committee today. This area that you are in, Assistant Attorney General Robinson, is critical. How we deal with young 

people that too frequently in our society can get caught up in peer 

pressure, the gangs and ultimately into conduct, violent conduct. 

And I note that you were the Chair of the Vera Institute of Justice 

and that you were in this work when Janet Reno used to come before this Committee and sit exactly in the chair that you did in this 

same room. If you could take a few minutes to reflect on this journey that we have all been going through in dealing with this very 

critically important area of our society in terms of how we approach the youngsters, and if there have been schools of thought 

that have come and gone in the course of your experience, I would 

be happy to hear about it. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Well, thank you for the question, Mr. Conyers. I 

would say that the main takeaway I would share is that there is 

now in this country in the criminal justice field and the juvenile 

justice field a common understanding. And we see this reflected in 

the National Forum on Youth Violence, in fact, and we see it reflected across law enforcement and across people in prevention 

work, and we see it from the mayors, and we see it from those in 

youth work—that a balanced approach is needed, that you need to 

24 

have law enforcement at the table and people involved in social 

services and prevention, that no one approach alone can make a 

difference. 

The one thing since the 1990’s on which there is now greater 

focus is the back end with reentry, and that is the additional element that we see brought to the table. So the balanced approach, 

a data driven approach and a multi-disciplinary one, I think, are 

the three elements that we would see as key, and there is such a 

consensus around this from every part of system. 

Mr. CONYERS. Now the LEAA, the Law Enforcement Assistance 

Administration, started back in 1968. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Correct. 

Mr. CONYERS. And I was wondering if there were differences between what happened then and what is happening now under OJP 

under your administration? 

Ms. ROBINSON. It is interesting that you ask that. I don’t know 

if there are many people around who are as much students of the 

history of the program as much as I am. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, when I came here the Chairman was Peter 

Rodino of New Jersey. 

Ms. ROBINSON. I recall. LEAA had a much greater emphasis on 

the comprehensive planning in its distribution of formula grants to 

the States than the OJP JAG Byrne funding has had traditionally. 

We have tried in working with the National Criminal Justice Association to return to a greater emphasis on that comprehensive 

planning, and the NCJA, the National Criminal Justice Association, has been a good partner in that. 

I think that is particularly important at a time of tightened 

budgets because of the need to think through how spending is directed. That would be one critical difference, I think. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, could I get an additional 2 minutes? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Without objection. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, sir. 

I wanted you to comment out of your wealth of experience, 

Madam, on the whole ‘‘lock ’em up and throw away the key’’ strategy. There still exists here some very serious divergent schools of 

thought; namely, you punish kids, you put them away, ignoring the 

fact that frequently they come out worse than when they went in. 

And the connecting observation to this is the fact that minority 

youth are disproportionately incarcerated as they are brought into 

the juvenile justice system. 

Do you notice any awareness of the fact that frequently they are 

the most ID’d, they are most frequently arrested, most frequently 

prosecuted, most frequently get the longest sentences, and most 

frequently end up as enemies of society by this process that I have 

been describing? 

Ms. ROBINSON. This is certainly an area that the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has addressed over a good 

deal of time under the disproportionate minority contact focus 

within that office, that initiative. So yes, there has been a great 

deal of attention to that. And I think that the juvenile justice systems in many States have addressed that, Mr. Conyers. 

25 

Mr. CONYERS. I hope you keep working on it because I am going 

to be; me and my staff are going to be in contact with you about 

it. 

Thanks, Chairman Gowdy. 

Mr. GOWDY. [presiding.] I thank the gentleman from Michigan. 

Ms. Robinson, good morning, welcome. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Good morning. 

Mr. GOWDY. There is a quote from you in 2007 where I think you 

accurately said particularly at a time of tight budgets we need to 

be investing in evidence based approaches that can actually help 

reduce crime and we need to stop funding programs that don’t 

work. I would add to that at some level we are going have to have 

more of a conversation about what is an appropriate role for the 

Federal Government juxtaposed with what is appropriate for State 

governments. And it is not a question of whether you place value 

on a program or an initiative. 

The examples I guess, at least to my mind, would be in the area 

of DNA testing. If a State is willing to invest its own money, hypothetically Virginia, South Carolina, Michigan is going to invest its 

own money in coming up with a state-of-the-art DNA lab and other 

States are not, why would the Federal Government incentivize or 

reward States who don’t meet what is a fundamental responsibility 

of the criminal justice system, which is testing their evidence? Why 

would that not be a program that you would say, okay, States, that 

is a State function whether you like it or not, your budgets are 

tight, our are tighter, you are going—I think I saw a note we are 

actually doing away with funding for the forensic science grants; is 

that right? 

Ms. ROBINSON. There are two different kinds of appropriation 

lines relating to this in our budget, one is the Paul Coverdell 

grants. 

Mr. GOWDY. Right. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Which we recommended not be funded in the 

budget last year. So we were looking for areas to reduce funding. 

And then there is the DNA testing, which is more the forensics 

area, which includes funding to look—and I will give you an example more on the science end—to look for ways to actually speed the 

process and look for more the science way to expedite ways that 

States are doing it. 

But I would make the point the vast majority of the testing in 

the labs is already paid for at the State and local level. So I agree 

with you. It is an inherently State and local responsibility. And as 

you well know as a former prosecutor at the local level, 95 percent 

of criminal justice occurs at the State and local level. 

Mr. GOWDY. And even though I love my State and I am very 

proud of it, we fought a battle as a local prosecutor getting the 

State legislature and others to prioritize what are the functions of 

State government. And it just strikes me as kind of counterproductive when the Federal Government comes in and rescues 

those States that aren’t willing to have that debate. 

Let me offer a worked of compliment to you. I think there are 

at least a couple of programs I am familiar with in my own former 

district which is now a congressional district. Lynn Hawkins’ Rape 

Crisis-SAFE Homes. South Carolina was number one in the counVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:48 Dec 07, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\110211\71054.000 HJUD1 PsN: 71054
26 

try in men killing women in 2000. And because of her work 

through some help I believe from the Department of Justice 

through a grant she has made remarkable progress. 

One area where I don’t see funding and maybe it is because I 

missed it, children advocacy centers, intervention programs, youth 

at risk programs. We can debate whether those work or not, some 

may, some may not. What is nondebatable is the success of the 

Children Advocacy Center and raising the conviction rates in child 

sex cases. 

So what is DOJ doing with respect to the children advocacy centers that are fighting for funding in these austere times. 

Ms. ROBINSON. No, we have funded Child Advocacy Centers definitely through our Juvenile Justice Office, so we have provided 

that funding. And if I may, can I go back to the DNA for a moment? 

Mr. GOWDY. Sure. 

Ms. ROBINSON. The kind of thing I find very exciting is through 

our National Institute of Justice, where we are doing some experimentation. I will give you an example from Baltimore. We are providing funding to the Baltimore Police Department and they are 

working with an academic institution with Yale and with a private 

company, as well, to test out digital technology, to go actually to 

the crime scene to sample DNA technology right there. And what 

they can do, and I am not an expert in this technology at all so 

I hope I am describing it correctly, but to get a smaller number of 

samples that they then, with this digital technology, process more 

quickly and less expensively. And I am told that it could really revolutionize the way we collect and process DNA technology to make 

it much quicker and less expensive. 

Mr. GOWDY. My time is up, but I wonder if the gentleman from 

Virginia might be gracious enough to allow me to ask one more 

question. 

Mr. SCOTT. No objection. 

Mr. GOWDY. I don’t want to get into the whole travel conference, 

I don’t have enough time to do that other than to say there is a 

facility—it is not in my district, it is in South Carolina—called the 

NAC, it is run by a former Federal prosecutor, I guess she is still 

a Federal prosecutor, her name is Cami Chandler. She does a phenomenal job. I was there last week, first time I have been there 

as a nonprosecutor. Are we using that as much as we ought to be? 

Columbia may not be as glamorous as a city that starts with San, 

although I think it is, it may not be, I understand reasonable 

minds can differ on that. Are we using the NAC which is as a phenomenal resource as much as we should be using it? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, actually I love the NAC. I have been there. 

The NAC—we do use that. It is actually booked almost all the time 

by the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, as I am sure you are familiar with as a former U.S. attorney. And we try to get in there 

more often, but it actually is booked almost all the time. But we 

do keep that in mind. And that is one of the things that we now 

are doing is actually—not just with the NAC—but we have a checklist that we are now requiring our staff at OJP to use to go down 

the checklist; for example, can this meeting be done by teleconferVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:48 Dec 07, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\110211\71054.000 HJUD1 PsN: 71054
27 

ence? Can it be done in a Federal facility? So the NAC is going to 

be on that list. 

Mr. GOWDY. Good. Thank you. The gentleman from Tennessee, 

Mr. Cohen. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir. First of all, I want to thank the Department, Ms. Robinson in particular, for all your efforts in coming 

to Memphis and other cities, I think Detroit is another, a National 

Forum for Youth Violence Prevention. Memphis was pleased to participate. Mr. Abt is almost a Memphian now, I think we have registered him to vote, taken his picture, all those things we have to 

do. It is a major success I think in bringing people together, the 

stakeholders and the community, and work together with youth violence, which Mr. Conyers was talking about, that is such a problem. I appreciate your reaching out to my office keeping me informed and involved. That has been very helpful. 

Mr. Conyers’ questions were about the youth and losing the 

youth and particularly minority youth. And I thought Mr. Gowdy, 

who I have come to respect greatly since he has been on this Committee, I got to know him in Congress, was going there in the same 

area I was going. And I think when he asked you about some quote 

you made previously about discarding things that don’t work and 

then suggesting that maybe there are certain programs that 

shouldn’t be Federal and most I guess—I don’t know how you 

phrased it, Mr. Gowdy, but it was that programs should be local 

and not Federal oftentimes. Many, many, many young people, particularly people of color, are arrested for possession of marijuana 

which shouldn’t be a Federal issue. It should be a local issue, like 

Mr. Gowdy said. Let the locals decide whether they want to make 

that illegal or not and how they deal with it. 

I know the City of Chicago, some aldermen are introducing a decriminalization bill today. The whole program in this country with 

marijuana arrests has been a failure for 40 years. The public is 

against it. More of the public now is for decriminalization than is 

against it. Those numbers are simply going to grow. 

What is the Department of Justice doing to try to see that we 

don’t continue to put scarlet letters on young people with arrests 

so they can’t get jobs later, can’t get maybe scholarships, get 

grants, loans in college and have the States make the decision to 

get the Federal Government out of in line with the Ron Paul-Barney Frank-et cetera bill. 

Ms. ROBINSON. On the general issue of reentry after convictions 

we have actually been doing a lot through our Prisoner Reentry 

Council. The whole issue of reintegration of people after they have 

been in the juvenile or criminal justice system is very top priority 

for Eric Holder as Attorney General. So we are working in concert 

with the Department of Labor and other parts of the government 

across the executive branch, both at the cabinet level and the agency staff level. 

Mr. COHEN. I know in the program you brought to Memphis 

there has been a holistic approach which I think is so needed. 

When you arrest a person and give them that scarlet letter and 

conviction from marijuana offense, it stays with them the rest of 

their life, and even if you go to labor, et cetera. There is Second 

Chances, but certain businesses wouldn’t hire you if you have a felVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:48 Dec 07, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\110211\71054.000 HJUD1 PsN: 71054
28 

ony offense, particularly for drugs. People can get all kind of jobs 

and be drunk as much as they want the night before. They can’t 

if they smoke marijuana and that happens to maybe be in their 

system. 

Shouldn’t this be an area the Department of Justice looks to 

make reform so we are not putting more young people at risk for 

not getting opportunities future? 

Ms. ROBINSON. No, the Administration has not taken that step 

at this point. 

Mr. COHEN. And do you think that—what does the Administration need to get to that step? Do they need some kind of consciousness training, do they need some scientists that maybe can give 

them some information or some pollsters that can tell them about 

the youth that they are losing and whatever they are losing? What 

do they need? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Well, I will be happy to raise this with my boss 

over there. 

Mr. COHEN. Do you know about Byrne grants? And there is a 

problem I have, I think Byrne grants, and this is something you 

could do. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. 

Mr. COHEN. Byrne grants are given out to law enforcement agencies, and when they use them oftentimes to arrest people for marijuana possession, it is just a vicious cycle. They get the money, 

they use it, they confiscate monies, they get—sometimes they get 

the proceeds of the arrest or the bust, and it is cash register justice. 

Shouldn’t the Byrne grants be conditioned on maybe going after 

the drugs that cause people to become addicted, like cocaine and 

meth and crack and only allow the Byrne grant monies to be used 

for those type of drug offenses where people get addicted and then 

go out and rob and murder? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Currently, by law, the JAG Byrne funding is 

overwhelmingly formula grant funding, so those decisions are made 

at the State level. 

Mr. COHEN. Can you give us some statistics or would you get 

some statistics on how much they have used that for marijuana arrests, which I think you will find it shockingly high? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. Yes, we can look at that. I actually would 

be surprised if it is that high, but we can certainly look at those 

statistics and get back to you with that information. 

Mr. COHEN. If I could have 1 more minute, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. GOWDY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COHEN. Some people don’t realize what is going on in the 

country, and we had a hearing, a discussion about a year ago, 2 

years ago, and Mr. Rangel, who is a knowledgeable man, said, oh, 

they don’t make marijuana possession arrests in New York, that 

doesn’t happen. New York is the number one location in the country for marijuana possession arrests, and it is people of color, and 

it is part of the program they have got there, they use it as a law 

enforcement tool, and then they stigmatize the person forever. 

So I think you would be surprised, and I would like to ask you 

if your office can do a study on the number of people in the jurisdictions, maybe with this Byrne grant money, who have been arVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:48 Dec 07, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\110211\71054.000 HJUD1 PsN: 71054
29 

rested for marijuana possession or marijuana in general because, 

you know, while you do them in the way, you give this money out 

in a lump sum, I would submit that this Administration, General 

Holder, should have some direction to the locals on how to spend 

that money, and the direction should be to go after meth and crack 

and heroin. Those are drugs that cause people to be addicted and 

cause them to have to steal and rob and do violent acts to get their 

habit, their drug fed. They have got a monkey on their back, and 

that is their Jones, and they take it. Marijuana is not the problem. 

It is turning a whole generation of young people against the system, and that is something we can’t afford. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. We can, by the way, put policy guidance 

with the distribution of the money, even though we can’t direct it 

under the current law. 

Mr. COHEN. Well, if you would look into putting that guidance 

in effect to let me know what guidance you might have done in the 

past or what you are looking for in the future. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Of course. 

Mr. COHEN. And I appreciate you, you are just phenomenal and 

do a great job. And so I started by praising Mr. Gowdy. I want to 

close by praising you. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Thank you so much. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank the gentleman from Tennessee. The Chair 

would now recognize the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Chaffetz. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. Thank you for being here. I want to 

touch on a couple different topics. Talk about the DNA initiative. 

Can you give me a sense of where the backlog is nationwide? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Of course. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Is it getting worse, is it getting better? Where is 

it at? 

Ms. ROBINSON. No, that is a very good question. I think it is 

helpful to think about the backlog as something with both a kind 

of front door and back door. We know that with the assistance of 

money that Congress has provided through the National Institute 

of Justice, we have been able to help States and localities build 

their capacity by about threefold over recent years, but at the same 

time new businesses come in the front door, and in many ways that 

is because criminal justice professionals have realized how helpful 

DNA is in solving cases, and it is not just in the traditionally violent crime cases. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Well, what degree of confidence do you have that 

these grants are actually being used for this? We have reports out 

of southern California in particular where this grant money was 

not being used to actually work on the DNA backlog. So what kind 

of oversight, what sort of assurance do you have that this money 

is actually going for its intended purpose? 

Ms. ROBINSON. We actually do have in many instances—may I 

ask what the specifics were about that? 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Sure, I will be happy to give you the news reports 

out of southern California, Los Angeles County in particular, where 

the backlog has become so untenable and so big, they literally had 

trailers with refrigerators, just throwing them in there, and the 

money was not actually being used for this. I just want to make 

sure that DOJ is aware of this and that they are actually pursuing 

30 

and making sure that the grant money actually goes for the intended purpose. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, well, I am aware of the fact that some of the 

backlog in L.A. was in the police department as opposed to actually 

in the DNA lab where funding had gone, but we are happy to work 

with your staff on that. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. The question is, how do you follow up and make 

sure that this money is actually being used for these intended purposes? 

Ms. ROBINSON. We do monitoring on all of these grants. We actually do desk audits on all of our grant funding. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. If you have such—do you have—okay, I would 

like—if you have an audit on all of these, I would like a copy of 

that, please. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Is that something you could provide me? How 

long? When will I get that? 

Ms. ROBINSON. We can get that to you within the next week to 

10 days. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. We will give you 14 days. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Maureen Henneberg. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. We will give you 14 days. That sounds good. 

I need to move quickly. I want to go to the Southwest Border 

Prosecution Initiative. This is a program that, as I understand it, 

was never authorized. However, it received about $326 million. The 

Department has proposed that this program be eliminated. The 

funding of this is gone. Why would you eliminate this program? 

Ms. ROBINSON. We have been asked by Congress to recommend 

limited funding, to go down in funding, and this was an area that 

we had identified as one perhaps not to extend, and the reason 

was—in looking over the panoply of the 53 programs at OJP—that 

are in the reimbursement programs. These are not evidence-based 

programs. They are backward looking reimbursements, and when 

Mr. Gowdy had raised earlier, ‘‘Are these programs that States and 

localities could fund’’ we were trying—you know, every program 

that we have of the 53—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. But, I mean, illegal immigration truly is the fault 

of the Federal Government, isn’t that correct? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes, it is. Well—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I mean, the States are having to live with the 

consequences of the Federal Government not doing its job. We have 

not secured the border. I guess one of my concerns is, if you look 

at that and then you also look at the State criminal assistance, 

alien assistance program—— 

Ms. ROBINSON. Right. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. This went from—went into law in 1995, is authorized to receive $4.4 billion, yet the Administration is only requesting $136 million in fiscal year 2012. That is down from $950 million through 2011. So the question is prioritization from the Administration as to why we are severely looking at the assistance to 

the States that deal with the problem that was really created in 

the responsibility of the Federal Government. 

Ms. ROBINSON. You raise a good point. It is really a question of 

available dollars. 

31 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. But why has the Administration not put this as 

a priority? 

Ms. ROBINSON. It is really a question of available dollars. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So you have a choice as to whether or not to reimburse these States, help the locals with dealing with the criminal 

alien population, and the Administration is making a very concerted effort to diminish those funds, put them down to a point 

where they are starting to approach zero, and that is one of my 

concerns, and I would love to learn more as to why you don’t think 

that is a priority. 

Yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank the gentleman from Utah. The Chair would 

now recognize the gentleman from Puerto Rico, Mr. Pierluisi. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you, Chairman. Welcome, Ms. Robinson. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Thank you. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. The first thing I will say, and I will be brief about 

this, and not because it doesn’t deserve more time, is that I should 

commend you because I know that you have had two stints at DOJ, 

and something happened in between which caused the ire of the Inspector General, and ever since you came back, now you are getting 

the praise of the Inspector General, and I get the sense that it has 

to do with the fact that you can even take pride of authorship or 

ownership of some of these programs, and it must have been pretty 

disappointing for you to see that these programs were being criticized and that could be endangered as a result of bad management 

practices. So I like, and I like what I hear, that now you are being 

praised for having better internal controls, and so on, like we 

should. 

Now, at times in this hearing it sounded like philosophical and, 

you know, why should the Federal Government get involved in this 

area and so on? Well, putting aside the law enforcement components of DOJ, FBI, DEA, and so on, in my view in this area the 

role of the Federal Government should be to be the promoter and 

supporter of best practices throughout America in the law enforcement area. It is as simple as that. This is one Nation, and when 

you identify best practices, you should be promoting States and 

local enforcement agencies to pursue them. It makes sense. 

Then technical support. That is key. And that is another fair 

area. It is fair game for the Federal Government to get involved in 

that. Now it troubles me that—I know we are going through fiscal 

constraints at the Federal level and at the local level, but, wow, 

what I have seen is a 25 percent cut in your programs in the last 

year. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Yes. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. That is a huge cut. So I am concerned. When you 

face a cut so dramatic, the first thing that comes to my mind is priorities, and that is the first question I have for you. I mean, what 

are the areas of most need in your mind? What are your priorities 

in using the scarce resources you are being given? 

Ms. ROBINSON. Thank you so much for the question. The areas 

I see as the greatest priority are what I would call the evidencebased programs and areas like juvenile justice, areas like the law 

enforcement programs. I was just at the International Association 

of Chiefs of Police meeting in Chicago last week. Five thousand poVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:48 Dec 07, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\110211\71054.000 HJUD1 PsN: 71054
32 

lice chiefs from around the country. So many of them coming there, 

of course, on their own dime because their jurisdictions cannot pay 

for it, talking about the challenges they are facing in their local jurisdictions dealing with issues like gangs, like youth violence, like 

drugs, and having to do it with limited budgets, with sophisticated 

crime that crosses jurisdictions, and gangs that are dealing with 

very sophisticated technology in many instances, and they are 

doing it again on tightened budgets, and what they need from us, 

certainly grant money, but also know-how. They need smart-oncrime approaches. This is what they can’t get in their local jurisdictions. So technical assistance, training, training on things like the 

ICAC task forces, you know, the Internet Crimes Against Children 

task forces, things like how to deal with a crime scene, things like 

how to deal with cold cases, and in the juvenile area. Mr. Scott referred to our conference on juvenile justice that we had. Again, we 

had juvenile justice professionals from around the country who 

came, paying their own way to get there because there was an opportunity to learn about how to deal with kids, whether it was in 

the mentoring area or on child protection. This is so important, to 

have Federal leadership. 

And Mr. Gowdy, in a way, this is what this is about, the Federal 

leadership, the appropriate Federal roles, this is what the program 

is really about, the appropriate Federal roles, what is it the Federal Government can add that is really the add-on that the States 

and localities can’t or are unable to do. Building knowledge, 

spreading knowledge. The technical assistance and training. Certainly, the data collection. No one State or locality is going to collect national data. Those are the kinds of things. And then spreading that knowledge, and the kind of thing that I described with the 

DNA. Those advancements, the bulletproof vests invented and developed by LEAA, our predecessor agency. Those are the kinds of 

things that grow out of programs like this, the reentry work, reentry really invented out of OJP, that concept, that concept and the 

work that we are doing to spread it. 

So those are the things. So you start with that core and build out 

from that. Those are the things. It is about leadership. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Chairman, could I get just 1 minute? It is just 

to make a comment and see what reaction Ms. Robinson gives me. 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you so much. The last I heard you were 

being criticized because apparently in coming up with proposals for 

areas in which there could be cuts, it appears that there is going 

to be a significant cut in immigration, in supporting local and— 

State and local law enforcement agencies in the area of immigration. But then the first thing that comes to my mind isn’t a Federal 

responsibility to take care of our borders and to enforce our immigration laws? Shouldn’t that be an area in which we are not really 

promoting State and local law enforcement agencies to do what we 

should be doing ourselves at the Federal level? Isn’t that part of 

the reason why, in setting your priorities, you said, well, this is 

really our burden, so let’s stop spending money for that purpose, 

to have the local law enforcement community assume it. 

Ms. ROBINSON. No, you raised a very good point. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. But you don’t want to comment further? 

33 

Ms. ROBINSON. Well, I think that it is a very good point. I think 

that the way the program is structured makes it a difficult one to 

administer in many ways, but that is probably a longer conversation. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. I hear you. By the way, you are cordially invited 

to visit Puerto Rico. I got envious when I heard that Congressman 

Cohen has had you over there, so please come see us. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank the gentleman from Puerto Rico. 

Ms. Robinson, on behalf of all of us, we want to thank you for 

your testimony today. Without objection, all Members will have 5 

legislative days to submit to the Chair additional written questions 

for the witness, which we will forward and ask the witness to respond to as promptly as she can so the answers may be made part 

of the record. Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative 

days to submit any additional materials for inclusion of the record. 

With that, on behalf of all of us, we thank you for your presence 

and your testimony. The hearing is adjourned. 

Ms. ROBINSON. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(35) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

36 


71054A-2.eps

Questions for the Record for 

Laurie O. Robinson 

Assistant Attorney General 

OUice of Justice Programs 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security 

Committee on the Judiciary 

U.S. House of Representatives 

November 2, 2011 

Questions from Congressman Ted Poe 

1. There is $6.5 - $7 billion in the Crime Victims Fund yet the eap has remained at the 

same level for three years at $750 million. Do you support increasing the cap? 

During Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, depo~iis in the Crime Victims Fund (CVP) totaled over $1.9 

billiuTI and Ihe cunent CVF balance is well over $6 billion. Beeause of the robust collectiuns by 

the Department of Justice in recent years, it is possible to raise the obligation cap lor the CVF 

without threatening its future stability. In FY 2009, the cap was $635 million, and in FYs 2010 

and 2011, the cap was $705 million, with $50 million in the anti-terrorism emergency reserve 

fund (above the eap). 

In 2009, OJP's Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) initiated a series of quarterly meetings with a 

rotating group of Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) state administrators. Many VOCA 

administrators reported that, while they appreciate the stable federal funding for victim services 

and compensation, both slate ami private sources of funding for crime victim support have been 

severely reduced. TIley expressed their interest and willingness to fund services to new or 

underserved kinds of crime victims, such as victims of human Irallkking, child victims of 

pornography, and victims of elder abuse and financial frand. They also indicated an interest in 

expanding the types of assistance available to all victims, such as legal assistance. 

Congressional committees and some individual Members of Congress have also shown interest 

in expanding the reach of victim services in this country. For eXalllple, the conference report 

accompanying H.R. 2112, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012, 

contains language encouraging the use of available VOCA fomlUla funding to provide services 

supporting enl(lrCement of victims' rights. It directs OJP and ove to consult with the VOCA 

administrators to detenlline how victim assistance fonnu1a fLlnds may be used to support 

enforcement services and to submit a report to the conference committee within 60 days of 

notif'ying the states of their VOCA victim assistance fonnula allocation for FY 2012. The 

Department has also received Congressional correspondence'emphasizing the need for more 

support for victims of elder abuse, victims of human trafficking, and for improved legal 

assistance for crime victims. 
37 


71054A-3.eps

In addition, OVC has launched a broad initiative -- VISION 2): Transforming Victim Services --

to expand the vision and eCiectiveness of the crimc victim services field. Initial VISION 21 

findings support the need to expand (he reach of serviccs to more victims and the type of 

assistance available to them. In FY 2013, (he President's Budget requests an incrcasc of$365 

million for the Crime Victims Fund (CVF), increasing the obligation cap to $1.07 billion. The 

increase in the obligation cap will: support programs to assist victims of violence against women, 

including grants to support domestic violence shelters and rape crisis shelters; provide 

transitional housing assistance and other needed services to victims of domestic violence, sexual 

assault, and stalking; support programs to assist children exposed to violence, missing and 

exploited children, and victims of trafficking; provide funding to further the implementation of 

the Adam Walsh Act; and funding to support DNA and rclated activities. 

2. The VISION 21 Program under the Office for Victilll5 of Crime meant to improve the 

future of victim services has been under way since last year. What is the status of the 

program, and are there any insights you have gathered thus far that you would like to 

share? 

Over the past year, four VISIallT 21 projects focusing on broad topic areas gathered information 

through literature reviews and national stakeholder forums, involving diverse groups of 

representatives from thc fcdcral, state, local, and tribal levels. Those projccts havc concluded 

and a filth project is wlTen(ly wlder way to analyze and synthesize the infonllation gathered 

through those eilarts into a final report. OVC plans to release (his report in (he late spring of 

2012. The Depru.tment will provide dle report to the Committee as soon as it becomes available. 

While the VISION 21 topic areas covered a diverse set of issues, several overarching themes 

emerged regarding the future of victim services. Initial VISION 21 fmdings indicate a number of 

critical needs in the victim services field that cut across all victimization types and victim 

populations. Some of these needs include: 

• Increasing data collection and scientific research on victimization issues; 

• Rigorous cvaluation of scrvices and programs to identify what works and what does not; 

• Increasing capacity to provide evidence-based services to all victims of crime, as well as 

effective strategies to identify and reach particular unserved and underserved victims; 

• Developing a more comprehensive, holistic service model, broadening our definition of 

who is a victim (to include individuals such as children who are being prostituted on the 

streets of Amcrica) and support for innovative assistance lha( helps victims establish a 

"new normal" in their lives; 

• Support for comprehensive, v,Taparound legal assistance for victims, which addresses the 

range oflegal assistance needs victims have as a result of their victimization; and 

2 
38 


71054A-4.eps

• Increasing flexibility for victims' services funding to allow service providers to more 

cffcctively and efficiently reach and serve victims, such as using innovative technology at 

the local, tribal, statc, national, and international levels. 

The fmal report will present a comprehensive framework for fostering strategic change in the 

victim services field. It will also include a proposed blueprint for demonstration projects to 

implement key findings. OJP anticipates that the VISION 21 report will provide the Department 

of Justice and the crime victims field with a strategic direction in developing specific and 

comprehensive programs to address victimization in the 21 ,j century. 

3. We have mnde n lot of progress over the yenrs in the victim services field. Do you believe 

we need more research in the field in order to provide useful, eflicient, nnd cost effective 

services? 

The crime victim services field's ability to address all victims of crime can be greatly enhanced 

by research and statistical infonnation about how people are victimized, including: 

• The commercial sexual exploitation of children through trafficking and child 

pornography; 

• The impact of financial fraud on vulncrable populatio,ns such as elderly citizens; 

• The effectiveness of specific interventions and service provision models including 

trauma-infonned care; and 

• Evaluation and research related to tribal victims. 

4. The National Institutes of Justice's website describes backlogs of forensic DNA evidence 

as "NIJ defines a backlogged case as one that hns not been tested 30 days after it has been 

submitted to the laborntory". It is no secret that there is a severe problem with rape kits 

backlogs in precincts across the country. Do you believe that this narrow definition needs 

to be updated in order to take into account the innumernble rnpe kits that remain untested 

in the custody of law enforcement? 

The Nil definition of backlogs is designed as a measure of timeliness specifically for forensic 

evidence that has been submitted to a crime laboratory for analysis. It does not include forensic 

evidence in law enforcement custody that has not been submitted to a crime laboratory for 

testing. Untcstcd sexual assault kits (SAKs), previously referred to as rape kits, can be stored in 

a numbcr of places: police department evidence rooms, crime labs, hospitals, clinics, or rapecrisis centers. It is unknown how many unanalyzed SAKs there are nationwide. There are many 

reasons for this, but one of the primary reasons is that tracking and counting SAKs is an 

antiquated process in many U.S. jurisdictions. A recent Nil sindy found that more than four in 

10 of the nation's law enforcement agencies - specifically, 43 percent- do not have a 

computerized system for tracking forensic evidence, either in their inventory or after it is sent to 

the crime lab. ' 

3 
39 

Æ 


71054A-5.eps