DOJ WORKFORCE 

PLANNING

Grant-Making 

Components Should 

Enhance the Utility of 

Their Staffing Models

Report to Congressional Committees

December 2012

GAO-13-92

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-92, a report to 

congressional committees 

December 2012 

DOJ WORKFORCE PLANNING 

Grant-Making Components Should Enhance the 

Utility of Their Staffing Models

Why GAO Did This Study

DOJ annually awards billions of dollars 

to thousands of grant recipients, which 

presents administrative and workload 

challenges for DOJ’s workforce. In May 

2011, DOJ’s grant-making components 

began deploying new staffing models 

to analyze their workloads and better 

ensure that staffing levels and 

personnel assignments reflect their 

responsibilities. In November 2011, the 

conference report accompanying 

DOJ’s FY 2012 appropriation directed 

GAO to evaluate each component’s 

staffing model. In response, this report 

addresses (1) the extent to which the 

grant-making components incorporated 

leading practices to ensure that their 

staffing models are sound and reliable 

and (2) the components’ use of the 

models to inform their workforce 

planning efforts, and the extent to 

which they used the models for budget 

development. GAO reviewed the 

staffing models the components 

procured under contract in 2011, and 

the updated, 2012 versions; identified 

six leading practices based on our prior 

work for ensuring the models’ 

soundness and reliability; and 

assessed the components’ actions for 

meeting each practice. GAO also 

interviewed component officials about 

their use of the models. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOJ 

components fully incorporate leading 

practices to help ensure their staffing

models’ soundness and reliability, and 

develop and implement a strategy for 

using the models to inform workforce 

planning and budget development.

DOJ agreed with these 

recommendations and reported it 

would take actions to address them. 

What GAO Found

The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) three grant-making components—the Office 

of Justice Programs (OJP), the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

(COPS), and the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW)—have partially met 

five of six leading practices, and fully met another, to ensure that the staffing 

models the contractor prepared for each of them to assess their workloads and 

workforce capacities are sound and reliable. These six leading practices are 

broad areas that represent a summary of the activities that should take place 

during the three stages of model design, development, and deployment. For 

example, the components partially met the leading practice for ensuring the 

credibility of data used in the models. This practice includes both verifying with 

staff that the models accurately depict the component’s operations—an activity in 

which they fully engaged—and testing the models for logic and accuracy—an 

activity in which they partially engaged. Specifically, the components did not 

comprehensively check all of the models’ formulas, and GAO found errors with 

all three components’ models’ retirement calculations. When left uncorrected, 

such errors have implications for workforce-related decisions and, ultimately, can 

affect the efficiency and effectiveness of component operations. In contrast, the 

components fully met one leading practice and its associated activities for

leveraging stakeholders. For example, all three components engaged grant 

managers and senior program officials when working with the contractor to apply 

their knowledge and experience to design and develop the models. Moving 

forward, fully incorporating leading practices when updating the models for future 

use will better position the grant-making components to capitalize on the models’ 

capacity and facilitate effective workforce planning and budgeting. 

Due to the deficiencies GAO identified in the design, development, and 

deployment of the staffing models, grant-making components have not used the 

models to identify workforce gaps or to inform the preparation of annual budget 

requests. In particular, the three grant-making components have not used the 

models to determine critical skills and competencies of staff and identify related 

gaps. Further, officials from all three components stated that they would like to, 

or plan to, use the models to inform the upcoming fiscal year 2015 budget 

requests, but they do not yet have a strategy for doing so. For example, officials 

from all three grant-making components recognize that their human capital staff 

will need to share and interpret the data in the models with their budget staff, but 

as of late September 2012, no time frames, coordination principles, or guidance

were in place to ensure this exchange of information. Standard practices for 

project management, including budget development, involve the establishment of 

timelines, coordination principles, and guidance. Developing, documenting, and 

implementing a strategy that includes these elements could help the grantmaking components better use the models to inform budget development. In 

particular, such a strategy should account for the full incorporation of leading 

practices to ensure the models are sound and reliable and that the quantifiable 

data from the models provide the proper context and justification to the Congress 

for the funding levels the components request. 

View GAO-13-92. For more information, 

contact David C. Maurer at (202) 512-9627 or 

maurerd@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

Letter 1 

Background 6

Grant-Making Components Have At Least Partially Met Leading 

Practices to Ensure that the Staffing Models Are Sound and 

Reliable, But Can Strengthen Their Efforts 15

Grant-Making Components Have Not Used the Staffing Models to 

Determine Workforce Gaps and Do Not Have a Strategy for 

Using the Models to Inform Budget Requests 29

Conclusions 35

Recommendations for Executive Action 36

Agency Comments 36

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 38

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Justice 41

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 45

Tables

Table 1: Overview of Active Grants, Authorized Positions, and 

Onboard Positions, by Grant-Making Component from 

Fiscal Years 2008 through 2011 9

Table 2: Four Phases of the Federal Grant Life Cycle 10

Table 3: Key Contractor Deliverables 14

Table 4: Leading Practices for Ensuring Model Soundness and 

Reliability 16

Table 5: Extent to Which Grant-Making Components Took Actions 

to Account for Risk Associated with Contracting Out 

Model Development 16

Table 6: Extent to Which Grant-Making Components Took Actions 

to Ensure the Credibility of Data Used in the Models 18

Table 7: Extent to Which Grant-Making Components Took Actions 

to Preserve the Integrity of Data Maintained in the Models 21

Table 8: Extent to Which Grant-Making Components Took Actions 

to Establish Roles and Responsibilities for Staff Assigned 

to Update and Operate the Models 23

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

Table 9: Timeliness of Components’ Designation of Responsible 

Staff to Initiate Updates to the Models 24

Table 10: Extent to Which Grant-Making Components Took 

Actions to Ensure Adequate Training for Staff Assigned to 

Update and Operate the Models 26

Table 11: Extent to Which Grant-Making Components Took 

Actions to Leverage Stakeholders’ Knowledge and 

Experience in Designing and Developing the Models 27

Figures

Figure 1: Department of Justice Grant Funding Appropriated from 

Fiscal Years 2008 through 2011 8

Figure 2: Timeline of Events That Affected the Grant-Making 

Components’ Plans to Expand the Size of their 

Workforces 13

Abbreviations

ACOR Assistant Contracting Officer Representative 

COPS Community Oriented Policing Services

COR Contracting Officer Representative 

DOJ Department of Justice

OJP Office of Justice Programs 

OVW Office on Violence Against Women

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548

December 14, 2012

The Honorable Barbara Mikulski

Chairwoman

The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, 

Science, and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Frank Wolf

Chairman

The Honorable Chaka Fattah

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, 

 Science, and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

At the close of fiscal year 2012, the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) three 

grant-making components—the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), the 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office), and the 

Office on Violence Against Women (OVW)—were responsible for 

overseeing just over $13 billion in federal financial assistance to support 

crime prevention, law enforcement, and crime victim services to about 

31,000 grantees operating at the state and local levels.1

 

1

DOJ provides federal financial assistance pursuant to statutory authorization. The 

assistance typically takes the form of formula grants; discretionary grants; and cooperative 

agreements and all are generally referred to as grants. Formula grant programs are 

noncompetitive awards based on a predetermined formula, typically established in statute. 

Discretionary grants are usually awarded on the basis of a competitive selection process. 

A cooperative agreement is a type of grant wherein the federal government is more 

substantially involved than usual in carrying out associated activities. For more 

information, see GAO, Justice Grant Programs: DOJ Should Do More to Reduce the Risk 

of Unnecessary Duplication and Enhance Program Assessment,

The fiscal year 

2012 enacted budgets of these three components comprise about 9 

percent of DOJ’s total budget authority, and to manage their workload, 

the three grant-making components are authorized for about 1 percent of 

GAO-12-517 

(Washington, D.C., Jul. 12, 2012).

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

DOJ’s total staffing level—a total of 960 positions. Staff members within 

these offices are involved in all aspects of grant awarding, including 

preparing funding announcements to describe the allowable uses of new 

grant funds, disbursing the awards, and routinely monitoring grantees’ 

compliance with financial, administrative, and programmatic 

requirements.2 In addition to this workload, the grant-making component 

workforce has other responsibilities as well, including but not limited to 

providing technical assistance to grantees, conducting research or 

preparing publications, and responding to external audits. To ensure that 

the grant-making components’ respective staffing levels and personnel 

assignments accurately reflect the responsibilities and requirements of 

each office, DOJ’s Justice Management Division (JMD) awarded a $2 

million contract to a private sector consulting company to develop a 

workload and workforce planning model (i.e., “a staffing model”) for each 

of the three grant-making components.3

We have previously reported on the need for strategic workforce planning 

to enhance performance and ensure accountability in federally funded 

programs.

Performance on the contract 

began in December 2010, and in May 2011, the contractor delivered a 

staffing model to each granting-making component based on common 

principles and assumptions, yet unique to their respective business 

processes. In addition, the contractor delivered a number of related 

planning documents, such as suggested strategies for developing 

workforce skills.

4

 

2

Further, we have designated strategic human capital 

management as a high-risk area and reported that the government’s 

management of its people—its human capital—was the critical missing 

link in reforming and modernizing the federal government’s management 

GAO-12-517. 

3

Among other responsibilities, JMD helps ensure strategic and human capital planning 

and oversees budget development for all of the agencies within DOJ. 

4

GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce Planning, 

GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003). 
 

Page 3 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

practices.5 As we have also previously reported, the number of grant 

programs and recipients, and the billions of dollars in funds DOJ awards 

annually, present administrative and workload challenges for DOJ’s 

workforce.6

In November 2011, the conference report accompanying DOJ’s 

appropriations act for fiscal year 2012 directed DOJ to detail actual and 

estimated costs of grant-making components’ management and 

administrative expenses, by grant program, in future budget 

submissions.7

To address the first question, we assessed how the staffing models are 

structured and the steps the grant-making components have taken to 

ensure that the models are sound and reliable. We primarily reviewed our 

The costs are to include categories of expenses other than 

grants, such as providing technical assistance and conducting research 

and statistics, among others. The conferees specifically encouraged the 

grant-making components to minimize administrative spending in order to 

maximize the amount of funding that can be used for grants. In addition, 

the conference report acknowledged the grant-making components’ 

efforts to analyze their workloads, and directed us to evaluate each grantmaking component’s staffing model and make recommendations, as 

warranted, on how each model could be further improved. This report 

addresses the following questions: (1) to what extent have the grantmaking components incorporated leading practices to ensure that their 

staffing models are sound and reliable?, and (2) how have the 

components used the models to inform their workforce planning efforts 

and to what extent have the components begun to use the models for 

budget development?

 

5

GAO, High Risk Series: An Update, GAO-01-263 (Washington, D.C.: Jan.1, 2001). Since 

that time, the federal government has made progress in addressing its human capital 

challenges and we have therefore narrowed the scope of this high-risk area to focus on 

the most significant challenges that remain to close current and emerging critical skills 

gaps in vital areas such as acquisition, foreign language capabilities, and oil and gas 

management. See GAO, High Risk Series: An Update, GAO-11-278 (Washington, D.C.: 

Feb. 16, 2011).

6

GAO-12-517. 

7

H.R. Rep. No. 112-284, at 242-43 (2011) (Conf. Rep.)
 

Page 4 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

prior work8

We also interviewed grant-making components’ senior officials with 

responsibility for grant administration as well as for human capital 

management and budget planning to understand how they worked with 

the contractor to design and develop the staffing models. We also 

interviewed those in each grant-making component responsible for 

updating and executing their respective models to get perspectives on the 

training they received, their prior workforce planning backgrounds, and 

to identify six leading practices for ensuring the staffing 

models’ soundness (i.e., their validity and reliability): (1) accounting for 

risk associated with contracting out model development, (2) ensuring the 

credibility of data used in the models, (3) preserving the integrity of data 

maintained in the models, (4) establishing roles and responsibilities for 

staff assigned to update and operate the models, (5) ensuring adequate 

training for staff assigned to update and operate the models, and (6) 

leveraging stakeholders’ knowledge and experience in designing and 

developing the models. We then assessed each individual grant-making 

component’s reported actions against the actions associated with each 

leading practice and determined the extent to which the practices were 

met. To do this, we used a scale of “fully met,” “partially met,” and “not 

met.” A determination of “fully met” means that the grant-making 

component provided evidence that it had completed all actions associated 

with the leading practice. A determination of “partially met” means that the 

grant-making component provided evidence that it had completed some 

actions associated with the leading practice. A determination of “not met” 

means that the grant-making component provided no evidence that it had 

completed any actions associated with the leading practice.

 

8

We primarily used GAO, Internal Control Management and Evaluation Tool, 

GAO-01-1008G (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 1, 2001) to develop the six leading practices. 

These leading practices are also informed and supported by GAO, Designing Evaluations: 

2012 Revision, GAO-12-208G (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2012); Federal Information 

System Controls Audit Manual, GAO-09-232G (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2009); and 

Assessing the Reliability of Computer-Processed Data, GAO-09-680G (Washington, D.C.: 

Jul. 2009). GAO has also examined the concepts of soundness and reliability in the 

following reports: See GAO, Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Strengthen Its Approach for 

Evaluating the SRFMI Data-Sharing Pilot Program, GAO-09-45 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 

7, 2008); Catastrophic Planning: States Participating in FEMA’s Pilot Program Made 

Progress, but Better Guidance Could Enhance Future Pilot Programs, GAO-11-383 

(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 8, 2011); Telecommunications: FCC’s Performance Management 

Weaknesses Could Jeopardize Proposed Reforms of the Rural Health Care 

Program,GAO-11-27 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 17, 2010); and Equal Employment 

Opportunity: Pilot Projects Could Help Test Solutions to Long-standing Concerns with the 

EEO Complaint Process, GAO-09-712 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 12, 2009).
 

Page 5 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

the time they spent working with the models. In addition, we analyzed 

documentation about the grant-making components’ practices related to 

updating the models, as well as the contractor’s guidelines for doing so. 

We then compared the grant-making components’ practices for 

designing, developing, and deploying the models for use to the leading 

practices we identified and made judgments about the extent to which 

they aligned. We also assessed each grant-making component’s model 

independently, reviewing all of the contractor’s deliverables and 

understanding the formulas and inputs constituting the models’ 

framework. To evaluate each model, we used a discovery method 

approach, wherein we examined a small number of strategically drawn 

formulas and calculations. While we were not attempting to develop a 

specific error rate per se, this discovery method approach permitted 

conclusions about the risk for (a) additional errors in other parts of the 

model we did not examine, and (b) potential errors in the model’s outputs.

To address the second question, we interviewed grant-making 

component and JMD officials on their workforce planning efforts prior to 

having the staffing models and discussed how the components are 

conducting workforce planning since obtaining the models and the ways 

in which they are using the models to inform their activities. We also 

discussed the grant-making components’ efforts and future plans to 

integrate the models into their budget submissions and the role JMD 

plays in facilitating these efforts. In addition, we reviewed related 

documents to support the officials’ testimonial evidence and identified 

relevant practices from our prior work for effectively linking budgets and 

workforce plans and compared DOJ’s activities and plans with these 

practices. More details on our scope and methods appear in Appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from May 2012 to December 2012 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.
 

Page 6 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

Workforce planning is a process for getting the right number of people, 

with the right skills, in the right job, at the right time to accomplish an 

organization’s mission and goals. As we have reported previously, 

strategic workforce planning addresses two critical needs: (1) aligning an

organization’s human capital management efforts with its current and 

emerging mission and programmatic goals, and (2) developing long-term 

strategies for acquiring, developing, and retaining staff to achieve 

programmatic goals.9

At its heart, workforce planning involves assessing workload; 

understanding the skills and limitations (i.e., capacity) of the existing 

workforce; and addressing the gaps needed to optimize performance. 

While organizations’ approaches to workforce planning will vary, our 

earlier work established five key principles that strategic workforce 

planning should address, irrespective of the context in which the planning 

is done. These include the following:

• involving top management, employees, and other stakeholders in 

developing, communicating, and implementing the strategic workforce 

plan;

• setting a strategic vision to determine the critical skills and 

competencies that will be needed to achieve current and future 

programmatic results;

• identifying and developing strategies that are tailored to address gaps 

in number, deployment, and alignment of human capital approaches 

for enabling and sustaining the contributions of all critical skills and 

competencies;

• building the capability needed to address administrative, educational, 

and other requirements important to support workforce planning 

strategies; and

 

9

GAO-04-39. 

Background

Workforce Planning 

Concepts
 

Page 7 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

• monitoring, evaluating, and revising the organization’s progress 

toward its human capital goals and the contribution that human capital 

results have made toward achieving programmatic results.

In addition, we have previously reported on the importance of ensuring 

that data used to make key decisions, such as for workforce planning, are 

both sound and reliable—meaning that the data are accurate, credible, 

and appropriate for analysis.10

DOJ administers its grant programs through three grant-making 

components—OJP, the COPS Office, and OVW.

• OJP is comprised of a number of bureaus and offices and its mission 

is to develop the nation’s capacity to prevent and control crime, 

administer justice, and assist crime victims. As such, it administers 

federal financial assistance to state and local governments, for-profit 

and nonprofit organizations, tribal jurisdictions, and educational 

institutions to help address victim assistance, technology and 

forensics, and juvenile justice, among other things.

• The COPS Office advances the practice of community policing, which 

supports the systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving 

techniques to address public safety issues such as crime, social 

disorder, and fear of crime. The COPS Office makes its grants 

available to police departments, including tribal law enforcement 

components, as well as researchers. Across its programs, the COPS 

Office has also funded schools and other organizations promoting 

public safety.

• OVW seeks to provide federal leadership in developing the nation’s 

capacity to reduce violence against women and strengthen services to 

victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and 

stalking. Like OJP and the COPS Office, its grant funding is available 

to an array of recipients, including those providing legal assistance, 

tribal and local law enforcement components, schools and campuses, 

and other advocacy organizations.

 

10GAO-09-45 and GAO-11-383. 

Grant-Making 

Components’ Roles, 

Responsibilities, and 

Funding
 

Page 8 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

The levels of appropriations across all three grant-making components 

have varied over time, as figure 1 illustrates, but OJP has consistently 

received the greatest amount. In fiscal year 2011, OJP had approximately 

$2.5 billion in funding for grants; the COPS Office had approximately 

$528 million; and OVW had approximately $431 million.

Figure 1: Department of Justice Grant Funding Appropriated from Fiscal Years 2008 

through 2011

Notes: (1) Appropriations figures include American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), Pub. L. 

No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115, funds but do not include carryover from prior years or payment programs, 

which are managed differently from typical grants in that they generally fund grantees on a 

reimbursable rather than direct basis. OJP is the only grant-making component to operate payment 

programs. (2) COPS Office appropriations reflect budget authority that has been provided to the 

COPS Office by DOJ’s annual appropriation acts, such as the DNA Backlog Reduction Program, 

even though these appropriations are shifted to OJP through an internal transfer that gives OJP 

program administration responsibilities. The amounts were $243,084,000 in 2008; $272,000,000 in 

2009; $203,000,000 in 2010; and, $168,153,020 in 2011. 

Similarly, the number of grants in active status, number of authorized 

positions, and the number of onboard positions across the grant-making 
 

Page 9 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

components have varied over time, as shown in table 1, but OJP has 

consistently been the largest component.11 Specifically, OJP managed

more than 19,000 grants, and had 702 authorized positions and 668 

onboard positions in fiscal year 2011.12

Table 1: Overview of Active Grants, Authorized Positions, and Onboard Positions, 

by Grant-Making Component from Fiscal Years 2008 through 2011 

In contrast, OVW, the smallest of 

the three, managed more than 2,800 grants and had 70 authorized 

positions with 61 onboard positions.

OJP 2008 2009 2010 2011

Active grants 14,912 18,899 19,438 19,404

Authorized positions 697 697 702 702

Onboard positions 637 690 696 668

COPS Office 2008 2009 2010 2011

Active grants 4,614 4,505 4,844 4,401

Authorized positions 166 166 188 188

Onboard positions 108 116 134 136

OVW 2008 2009 2010 2011

Active grants 2,533 2,578 2,685 2,871

Authorized positions 65 65 65 70

Onboard positions 48 58 66 61

Source: OJP, COPS Office, and OVW.

Notes: (1) Active grants are those that were active for more than 1 day during the fiscal year, and do 

not reflect the agency’s entire workload. (2) Authorized positions include full- and part-time federal 

employees but do not include additional contractor staff. There are some authorized positions whose 

responsibilities are not directly related to grants management yet whose duties are critical to the 

operation of the component. (3) The level of actual, onboard personnel may be lower at any given 

time than the total positions authorized, and may also be slightly higher so long as DOJ is within the 

allowable, authorized position cap departmentwide. 

The federal financial assistance the grant-making components administer 

typically takes the form of discretionary grants, formula grants, and 

 

11Authorized positions include full- and part-time federal employees but do not include 

additional contractor staff. There are some authorized positions whose responsibilities are 

not directly related to grants management yet whose duties are critical to the operation of 

the component. 

12Onboard positions refer to personnel that are actually in place at any given time.
 

Page 10 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

cooperative agreements, and all are generally referred to as grants.13

Table 2: Four Phases of the Federal Grant Life Cycle

The 

grants that OJP, the COPS Office, and OVW award generally follow a 

similar life cycle, including pre-award, award, implementation, and closeout 

stages, as table 2 illustrates. OJP and OVW use a web-based system—the 

Grants Management System (GMS)—to manage this process, while the 

COPS Office uses a separate COPS Management System (CMS), which is 

a desktop, integrated set of programmatic, financial, and related 

applications that communicates with a centralized database.

Grant phase Common activities

Pre-award • Announce the grant opportunity with a grant solicitation, which 

notifies potential applicants of the grant’s purpose, the terms of the 

award, the amount available, and the eligibility criteria, among 

other information

• Receive and review applications

• Make award decisions based on requirements set by statute and 

the grant-making component, as appropriate

Award • Notify the grantee

• Publicly announce the awarding of funds

Implementation • Disburse payment

• Collect and review grantee progress reports to check that grants 

are being implemented as intended and that grantees are 

compliant with statutory or regulatory requirements as well as any 

applicable policy guidelines

• Conduct site visits to monitor grantees’ activities at their locations

• Review expenditures of grantees compared with their approved 

budgets and allowable grant expenditures, and review compliance 

with grant requirements such as the submission of required grant 

reportsa

 

Close-out • Review and reconcile final data and other reports

• Ensure that each recipient has met all of the grant’s programmatic 

and financial requirements, returned any unused funds, and 

provided final reports

Source: GAO

a

For more on the grant monitoring and assessment functions of the three grant-making components 

see GAO-12-517. 

 

13In a competitive program, applicants generally compete for funding that agencies award 

at their discretion. In contrast, in a formula program, recipients and award amounts are 

generally based on statutorily defined calculations that may incorporate a state’s 

population and violent crime rate, for example. For more details on these programs, as 

well as cooperative agreements, see GAO-12-517. 
 

Page 11 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regulations require organizations 

to conduct workforce analyses as part of their human capital plans that 

describe their current states, project human resources needed to achieve 

organizational goals, and identify potential shortfalls.14

Because OVW and the COPS Office are not considered to be major 

components, and instead are referred to as “Offices, Boards and 

Divisions,” JMD’s current workforce plans do not specifically address 

these two grant-making components’ workload and workforce capacities 

and gaps. In recognition of this, and in part because of congressional 

interest in seeing more detail in the grant-making components’ budget 

submissions, JMD took the lead in awarding a contract for a consolidated 

workforce planning effort that would result in a staffing model for 

assessing workload demands and workforce capacity—as well as gaps—

and strategies for bridging the gaps for each of the three grant-making 

components. DOJ sent a request for proposals to select vendors in 

September 2010, describing its requirement for a comprehensive 

workload and workforce analysis to ensure that its grant-making 

components are properly structured, staffed, and managed to meet 

current and projected responsibilities. The request for proposals stated 

that the review should identify best practices, problems, and solutions 

relating to the grant-making components’ existing and projected workload 

and workforce requirements, and should examine and document the 

processes, procedures, and data used by each grant-making component 

In response, DOJ’s 

JMD human resources staff has taken the lead in developing human 

resource strategies and establishing a workforce planning framework for 

the Department. In October 2007, JMD convened a workforce planning 

council, comprised of representatives from the major DOJ components, 

including OJP, to ensure that workforce planning and human resource 

initiatives would be integrated consistently and cost-effectively throughout 

DOJ. In June 2010, the council issued the Department’s first workforce 

plan, covering the major components from 2010 through 2013. The plan 

is updated each year using annual addenda. In addition to the workforce 

plan, JMD issued a strategic leadership succession plan in 2007 and a 

departmentwide human capital strategic plan covering 2007 through 

2012, which it has recently begun to update. JMD also works with all the 

grant-making components and other department components to refine 

their budgets for submission in the President’s annual budget request.

 

145 C.F.R. § 250.203. 

DOJ and the Grant-Making 

Components’ Workforce 

Planning Efforts
 

Page 12 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

in making workforce planning decisions. DOJ awarded the contract in 

early December 2010.

During the contract’s term, as well as during the months preceding the 

final award, a number of events transpired that affected the grant-making 

components’ plans for expanding the size of their workforces. As the 

timeline in figure 2 illustrates, these events included a governmentwide 

continuing resolution as well as a departmentwide hiring freeze.15

 

15A continuing resolution is an appropriation act that provides budget authority for federal 

agencies, specific activities, or both to continue in operation when Congress and the 

President have not completed action on the regular appropriation acts by the beginning of 

the fiscal year. 
 

Page 13 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

Figure 2: Timeline of Events That Affected the Grant-Making Components’ Plans to Expand the Size of their Workforces

To meet DOJ’s specifications, the contractor provided regular progress 

reports, slide sets to explain the methods used, and a set of five key 

planning documents, or “deliverables,” as table 3 shows. In conducting 

this work, the contractor assigned staff to each of the grant-making 

components, and in May 2011, provided each with a unique set of these 

five deliverables, all tailored to the individual grant-making component’s 

circumstances and needs.
 

Page 14 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

Table 3: Key Contractor Deliverables

Deliverable Purpose/scope

Existing Workforce 

Environment/Future 

Workforce Environment

An initial profile of current and future workload (demand) 

and current and future workforce (supply).

Workforce Capacity Gap 

Analysis

A report highlighting current and potential future talent 

gaps at each skill and grade level within an occupational 

series. 

A Description of the Staffing 

Model and Related Talent 

Strategies

A description of the methods to develop the staffing 

model and strategies that each grant-making component 

can execute to develop the workforce capacity and 

competencies it needs for the future.

Staffing Model An electronic spreadsheet that reflects the work required 

for key activities (e.g., grant administration) and matches 

resources required with forecasted needs (e.g., newly 

authorized grant programs). It was designed to be 

flexible enough to react to future changes, to be used 

and updated independently by grant-making component 

staff, and to provide input into each grant-making 

component’s workforce plans and resource/budget 

requests.

User Guide A technical manual that documents the model’s 

methodology and provides a tactical “how to” for using 

the model. It was intended for audiences already familiar 

with the work done at each grant-making component 

and who will be actively using the model and its outputs 

(e.g., senior leadership and other decision-makers, 

model users, and model administrators).

Source: GAO analysis of contractor deliverables.

The staffing model is the key contractor deliverable that was designed to 

provide DOJ’s grant-making components with:

1. a repeatable methodology for better estimating future resource needs 

and making fact-based cases for resources in their budget requests 

and

2. a tool for better (a) understanding the factors that drive their 

workloads, and (b) identifying the skill gaps they need to address to 

be successful in the future.

According to DOJ officials, the model was specifically designed as one 

tool among many for workforce planning and resource allocations rather 

than a single solution, and has the flexibility to evaluate the impact of 

potential changes and scenarios.
 

Page 15 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

According to grant-making component officials, to inform the models’ 

development, they provided the contractor with access to subject matter 

experts to inform the process through interviews, focus groups, and 

surveys. A JMD official served as the lead Contracting Officer 

Representative (COR) and each granting-making component designated 

an assistant, or ACOR, to review the deliverables from the component’s 

perspective.16 The lead COR also chaired a technical evaluation panel, 

comprised of a representative from each of the grant-making components, 

to evaluate the contractor’s proposal prior to awarding the contract.

The grant-making components have partially met five of six leading 

practices, and fully met another, to ensure that their staffing models are 

sound and reliable. We identified these six leading practices—broad 

areas that represent a summary of the activities that should take place 

during the three stages of model design, development, and deployment—

from prior GAO work.17

 

16The COR is responsible for ensuring that contractors abide by the contract. The COR

provides critical acquisition and technical functions to ensure that contractual agreements 

are properly followed. 

They are: (1) accounting for risk associated with 

contracting out model development, (2) ensuring the credibility of data 

used in the models, (3) preserving the integrity of data maintained in the 

models, (4) establishing roles and responsibilities for staff assigned to 

update and operate the models, (5) ensuring adequate training for staff 

assigned to update and operate the models, and (6) leveraging 

stakeholders’ knowledge and experience in designing and developing the 

models. We believe that fully adhering to these leading practices would 

better position DOJ’s grant-making components to have reasonable 

assurance that their staffing models are sound and reliable. Table 4 

illustrates each of the six leading practices we included in our review, 

their implications for soundness and reliability, and the extent to which the 

grant-making components collectively met them.

17We primarily developed this framework using GAO-01-1008G. The leading practices are 

also supported by other publications such as GAO-12-208G; GAO-09-232G; and 

GAO-09-680G. 

Grant-Making 

Components Have At 

Least Partially Met 

Leading Practices to 

Ensure that the 

Staffing Models Are 

Sound and Reliable, 

But Can Strengthen 

Their Efforts
 

Page 16 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

Table 4: Leading Practices for Ensuring Model Soundness and Reliability 

Leading practice Implications for soundness and reliability

Extent to which 

components met the 

practice

Account for risk associated with contracting out 

model development 

Weigh the benefits and hazards of contracting out for 

project management versus managing the project inhouse 

Partially

Ensure the credibility of data used in the models Provide assurance that data supporting a model, 

project, or activity are appropriate, complete, and 

correct (e.g., check formulas in the model)

Partially

Preserve the integrity of data maintained in the 

models

Provide assurance that changes to the model are 

authorized, complete and accurate and are preserved 

for ongoing use (e.g. password-protected data)

Partially

Establish roles and responsibilities for staff 

assigned to update and operate the models

Promote accountability and establish how resource 

needs will be met

Partially

Ensure adequate training for staff assigned to 

update and operate the models

Provide assurance that a model, activity, or project can 

be used for its intended purpose

Partially

Leverage stakeholders’ knowledge and experience 

in designing and developing the models

Provide assurance that a model, project, or activity 

meets user needs and specifications

Fully

Source: GAO analysis.

Note: A designation of “fully met” indicates that a component provided evidence that satisfied the 

entire criteria for the respective leading practice; “partially met” indicates that a component provided 

evidence that satisfied some portion of the criteria; and “did not meet” indicates that a component 

provided no evidence that satisfied any portion of the criteria. 

The grant-making components partially met this leading practice, as table 

5 illustrates. Accounting for risk associated with contracting out model 

development includes verifying the contractor’s ability to complete the 

work; outlining clear, relevant, and measurable objectives for the 

contractor; and ensuring adequate technical assistance post-delivery of 

the work product.

Table 5: Extent to Which Grant-Making Components Took Actions to Account for 

Risk Associated with Contracting Out Model Development

Leading practice: account for risk associated with contracting out 

model development ◑ • Verify contractor's ability to complete work ● • Outline clear, relevant, and measurable objectives for the contractor ● • Ensure adequate technical assistance post-delivery of work product 

 Not met

◑ Partially met

● Fully met

Source: GAO.

Account for Risk Associated 

with Contracting Out Model 

Development 
 

Page 17 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

To verify the contractor’s ability to complete the work, JMD and the grantmaking components confirmed the contractor had experience conducting 

workforce and workload assessments. Specifically, the technical evaluation 

panel requested information about the qualifications and experience of the 

contractor staff who would be assigned to work on the models. Moreover, 

to outline clear, relevant, and measurable objectives for the contractor, the 

contract required the delivery of monthly contractor progress reports. JMD 

appointed as lead COR a qualified individual with prior experience in 

workforce analysis and ensured this individual received training in COR 

roles and responsibilities. Together, the lead COR and the ACORs from 

OJP, the COPS Office, and OVW reviewed these monthly progress reports 

to check for completeness and timeliness of the work.

However, when deciding to contract out the work—rather than relying on 

in-house staff—OJP, the COPS Office, and OVW stakeholders did not 

design and execute the contract to ensure adequate technical assistance 

post-delivery of the final work product. In particular, the components did 

not address the provision of post-delivery technical assistance at any of 

the following points during the contracting process:

• when the grant-making components drafted an initial statement of 

work for JMD’s consideration;

• when JMD prepared the final request for proposals to outsource the 

work;

• when the technical evaluation panel reviewed the prospective 

contractor’s proposal—even though the proposal showed the work 

period ending with delivery of the models; and

• when JMD approved the final contract.

As a result of not ensuring that the contract included a specific provision 

for post-delivery technical assistance, all three grant-making components 

have had to independently reach out to the contractor for help once they 

started familiarizing themselves with the models and began to update 

their data. As such, they have had to rely on the contractor’s goodwill to 

answer any questions that have arisen since the contract period has 

ended. For example, OVW officials stated that they were unable to 

manipulate a formula in the staffing model to properly account for parttime contractor staff. To work around this limitation, they had to enter 

negative values elsewhere in the staffing model spreadsheet. OVW 

officials reported reaching out to the contractor since they were not 
 

Page 18 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

knowledgeable about how to correct this issue on their own, and they 

ultimately received assistance in how to correct the error in the model. 

More recently, in August 2012, a COPS Office official reached out to the 

contractor for additional assistance updating their workforce data. 

Specifically, the COPS Office found that the model was not saving 

updates they had made. The contractor determined that there was a 

“bug” in the model, and proceeded to correct the issue. According to 

officials from all three grant-making components, at this time, they do not 

see a need for additional technical assistance; however, should it be 

needed, future assistance is not guaranteed and would require a new 

task order for future contracted services.18

The grant-making components partially met this leading practice, as table 

6 illustrates. Ensuring the credibility of data used in the models includes 

verifying with staff that the models accurately depict their system and 

testing the models for logic and accuracy.

Table 6: Extent to Which Grant-Making Components Took Actions to Ensure the 

Credibility of Data Used in the Models

Leading practice: ensure data credibility ◑ • Verify with staff that model accurately depicts their system ● • Test the model for logic and accuracy ◑

 Not met

◑ Partially met

● Fully met

Source: GAO.

To verify with staff that the models accurately depict their respective 

systems, officials from the grant-making components told us that subject 

matter experts reviewed the accuracy of the staffing models’ workforce 

inputs, such as staffing levels, and workload assumptions, such as the 

length of time certain tasks take. For example, OJP officials stated that they 

reviewed the workforce data the contractor used from OPM to ensure that 

the full-time equivalent (FTE) staffing counts appeared reasonable. 

Moreover, OVW and COPS Office officials reported reviewing the 

contractor’s summaries of interviews with grants management staff to 

 

18A task order is an order for services placed against an established contract or with 

government sources. FAR § 2.101. 

Ensure the Credibility of Data 

Used in the Models
 

Page 19 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

determine the accuracy of the contractor’s estimates for completion of 

certain grant management tasks, such as developing grant announcements 

and notifying applicants of award decisions. Since these components do 

not have systems to track the actual amount of time grant managers spend 

per activity, they had no other way to verify the credibility of the workload 

assumptions the contractor used to estimate resource needs.

With respect to testing the model for logic and accuracy, the components 

reported taking steps to test the logic, but did not follow a systematic 

process to test for accuracy in a manner consistent with leading practices. 

To test the logic of the models’ design and development, the components 

reported involving the ACORs, managers, and subject matter experts in 

reviewing, evaluating, and approving the contractor’s assessments of 

each component’s “existing environment.” OJP officials shared with the 

contractor that they organize their workload around individual grant 

solicitations rather than overarching grant programs. In contrast, officials 

from the COPS Office and OVW ensured the contractor understood that 

they organize their workload around the broader grant programs, rolling 

up the individual solicitations. Thus, the contractor built the models in 

recognition of these distinctions and the logic of each model reflects the 

variation.

However, in testing the accuracy of the data and formulas in the model, the 

grant-making components did not follow a systematic process to check the 

completeness and accuracy of staffing model data. Specifically, in checking 

the data, they did not use a random sample that was large enough to

conclude that all the data the contractor used to support the model were 

sound and reliable.19

 

19

Instead, all three grant-making components made 

limited attempts to check the data and the formulas in the models they 

received. For example, OJP officials stated they reviewed some of the data 

but could not provide evidence of a sampling methodology that would allow 

them to make conclusions about the overall accuracy of the data. Similarly, 

officials from the COPS Office stated that they did not develop a systematic 

verification plan to check that the data and formulas were free of flaws and 

programming errors, but that they reviewed the model output and worked 

backwards through the model to determine if the output seemed 

questionable. OVW officials stated that they tested a sample of the data, 

but did not use a scientific process to select that sample. They were unable 

GAO-01-1008G. 
 

Page 20 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

to check all data because only one employee was available to perform this 

task. According to component officials, the contractor’s experience with 

similar projects in the private and public sectors provided them the 

assurance that the contractor’s data gathering and modeling 

methodologies were sound. Nevertheless, even with their limited review, 

the grant-making components reported uncovering several contractor 

errors. These ranged from the contractor’s formulas not carrying over 

beyond a certain row in the spreadsheet—and thus not producing 

calculations—to formulas not accounting for activities associated with grant 

closeout activities—and thus underestimating total workload 

responsibilities.

Our review of the models also identified several issues indicating that the 

components did not test the accuracy of the models in a manner consistent 

with leading practices for ensuring soundness and reliability.20

 

20See appendix I for elaboration on this approach.

For 

example, the OJP, COPS Office, and OVW models each revealed a 

programming error related to retirement calculations that none of the offices 

was aware of before we identified it during our audit work. Specifically, the 

OJP and COPS Office models were 1 year off in their retirement 

projections, miscalculating the annual impact of potential retirement on the 

existing workforce and, in so doing, miscalculating the potential capacity of 

the workforce. Additionally, another methodological error in OJP’s model 

caused OJP to initially underestimate retirements by 86 percent (or 

approximately 54 retirements) from 2013 through 2016. OJP has since 

corrected the errors in its model and the COPS Office is working to address 

its error. Further, the methodological error in the OVW model causes any 

staff eligible to retire in the next 12 months to be counted as eligible in the 

current calendar year, irrespective of the actual year of eligibility. Though 

OVW is a small office and the current error impacts just one employee, if 

left uncorrected, this formula error could have greater impact in the future 

as more employees approach retirement eligibility. For example, this error 

could cause a model user to believe that the workforce would be impacted 

on an accelerated timeframe and provide inaccurate information to inform 

workforce planning. During the course of our audit work, OVW officials 

could not identify the steps they planned to take to address the incorrect 

formula. Additionally, the COPS Office’s model, unlike the other models, 

omits eligible Executive Management staff from its retirement calculation, 

resulting in an underestimation and suggesting that the overall rigor of the 
 

Page 21 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

COPS Office review of the model may not have been adequate to ensure 

soundness. Upon acknowledgement of our finding, COPS Office officials 

said they planned to correct the error.

When we asked the grant-making components about the extent of their 

initial tests of the models’ logic and accuracy, OJP officials stated they 

were satisfied with the retirement estimates that the model produced based 

on the contractor’s use of an assumed retirement rate of 15 percent per 

year. COPS Office officials stated that limited staff capacity—one person 

was assigned to the model—and the added challenge of reorganizing their 

Grants Administration Division while updating the model delayed more 

comprehensive checking of the contractor’s formulas. OVW officials also 

pointed to resource constraints, stating that they had sufficient resources to 

check only a sample and found this sampling approach to be reasonable in 

light of their limited staff capacity. Nevertheless, the errors we found raise 

questions about whether the components systematically confirmed the 

credibility of the staffing model data or verified the results. As a result, the 

reliability of the models could be compromised. Moreover, using the 

models without validating their results for decision-making could expose 

components to additional risk—for example, by miscalculating the size of 

the workforce needed to fulfill workload demands—ultimately impacting the 

efficiency and effectiveness of their operations.

The grant-making components partially met this practice, as table 7 

illustrates. Preserving the integrity of the data maintained in the models 

includes four controls related to model use: authorization control; 

completeness control; accuracy control; and integrity control.

Table 7: Extent to Which Grant-Making Components Took Actions to Preserve the 

Integrity of Data Maintained in the Models

Leading practice: preserve data integrity ◑ • Authorization control: authorize use with passwords, supervisory 

approval, and access rights ●

• Completeness control: make changes electronically and review 

entries to ensure completeness ●

• Accuracy control: check accuracy of data before and after entry ◑ • Integrity control: protect model integrity by documenting changes 

and maintaining records ◑ 

 Not met

◑ Partially met

● Fully met

Source: GAO.

Preserve the Integrity of Data 

Maintained in the Models
 

Page 22 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

With respect to authorization control, leading practices indicate that only 

authorized users should be granted the ability to access and update the 

staffing model. All three grant-making components have restricted access 

to the models or plan to restrict access as a means of protecting their 

results. OJP officials stated that access to the model is passwordprotected to limit access to certain key individuals, and OVW officials 

stated that they have provided copies only to those staff members 

assigned to update and operate the model. Similarly, officials from the 

COPS Office stated that access is restricted to the staff member assigned 

to work on the model and the quality reviewer using their individual data 

drives.

Regarding accuracy control, leading practices also suggest that users 

should systematically review information for accuracy prior to entering 

data and that others should check to identify and correct any errors 

associated with data entry after data have been entered. Two of the three 

grant-making components reported checking data prior to entry, and all 

three grant-making components reported reviewing new data entries 

against source documentation. For example, OJP officials stated that 

data are checked post-entry, with two employees reviewing the data that 

another employee has entered using the source documentation. COPS 

Office officials reported a similar process in which data are first verified 

with managers and then entered by one employee. Then, post-entry, all 

data are reviewed by that employee’s supervisor using the same source 

documentation. OVW officials reported checking personnel data from 

JMD and contractor data from managers prior to entry. After data are 

entered, a supervisor reviews the updates against the source documents, 

and program-related data are double-checked by a program expert.

However, when asked to describe their processes for ensuring accuracy, 

none of the components reported reconciling updated versions of the 

model against prior versions—an action important for ensuring accuracy 

after data are entered. Because each model is contained within a large 

spreadsheet consisting of multiple worksheet tabs, reconciliation against 

prior versions helps identify any changes made in error and ensure that 

information from prior versions which should remain in the model is in fact 

carried forward into any updated versions. Moreover, these stored 

versions could allow the grant-making components to evaluate how 

accurately the model predicted certain outcomes, such as attrition, and 

ensure a record of workload and workforce changes over time.

With respect to integrity control, leading practices state that users should 

document and maintain records of changes made to the model. Officials 
 

Page 23 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

from all three grant-making components reported storing prior versions on

shared access servers or drives. Specifically, officials from OJP described 

saving versions using a shared access server, which captures the most 

recent version and prevents multiple users from updating the model 

concurrently. Officials from the COPS Office and OVW reported saving 

updated versions using the date of the update as a guide, but they did not 

report using a process to ensure that the most recent version is used 

each time data are updated and that multiple users may not concurrently 

update the models. At the time of our review, only one employee from the 

COPS Office and one employee from OVW were assigned primary 

responsibility for updating the data, resulting in a low risk of updating the 

wrong version or allowing concurrent updates. However, officials from 

both the COPS Office and OVW reported that they intend to increase the 

number of model users in the future, and implementing integrity controls 

to identify the most current model version and prevent concurrent updates 

would help protect model integrity.

As a result of not fully establishing comprehensive policies to review the 

model for accuracy and documenting and maintaining records of changes 

to protect model integrity, components increase the risk that the models 

will not produce reliable information to inform management decisions and 

budget requests. Both current decisions and future uses of the models 

could be compromised if components do not act to implement protections 

before using the models on a regular basis.

The grant-making components partially met this leading practice, as table 

8 illustrates. Establishing roles and responsibilities for staff assigned to 

update and operate the models includes assigning staff to all necessary 

tasks and defining their duties and responsibilities.

Table 8: Extent to Which Grant-Making Components Took Actions to Establish 

Roles and Responsibilities for Staff Assigned to Update and Operate the Models

Leading practice: establish roles and responsibilities ◑ • Assign staff to all necessary tasks ◑ • Define the duties of responsible staff  

 Not met

◑ Partially met

● Fully met

Source: GAO.

Establish Roles and 

Responsibilities for Staff 

Assigned to Update and 

Operate the Models 
 

Page 24 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

Before work began on model design, development, and deployment, all 

three grant-making components assigned staff to some, but not all, 

necessary tasks. Specifically, all three components identified and assigned 

staff to work on the design and development of the models. Nevertheless, 

delays in being able to use the model resulted in part because the grantmaking components did not identify staff to begin updating the models with 

more recent data until many months after the contractor finalized the fiscal 

year 2010 baseline data, as table 9 illustrates.

Table 9: Timeliness of Components’ Designation of Responsible Staff to Initiate 

Updates to the Models

Date

Designation of responsible staff to initiate 

updates to the models

Lapse in time 

from model 

receipt

January 2012 OVW reassigned an individual working under an 

existing contract to work with the model and update 

its data.

8 months

January 2012 OJP assigned a staff member it had hired in May 

2011 specifically to begin collecting and assessing 

updated data.

8 months

February 2012 COPS Office assigned a management analyst to 

start working on updates. 

9 months

Source: GAO analysis of OVW, OJP and COPS Office documents and interviews with OVW, OJP and COPS Office officials.

OJP and OVW officials stated that delays in identifying staff responsible 

for review and updates to the data in the models were due to staff 

availability and timing of updates. OJP officials stated that they started 

updates in January 2012 because that is when the individual assigned to 

the model became available and when they had sufficient fiscal year 2012 

data to include in the model. Similarly, OVW officials also stated that they 

began the updates when 2012 data were available. Officials from the 

COPS Office explained that competing human capital priorities and DOJ’s 

hiring freeze contributed to delays in hiring and assimilating qualified staff 

with the skills needed to work on the model. All three components have 

faced or currently face human resource constraints and challenges in 

hiring and staffing qualified staff with the skills needed to update data in 

the staffing models. For example, OJP was authorized for more human 

capital staff than employed until October 2012, which is when it expected 

to fill its three open human capital positions, and one of the individuals 

filling these three slots would be assigned to work on the model. OVW 

officials stated that they are authorized for one human capital position, but 

the slot remains vacant due to budget concerns and the associated 

departmentwide hiring freeze that remains in place. According to OVW 
 

Page 25 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

officials, while JMD fulfills most of their human capital needs, having this 

position vacant means they have no one to focus on strategic human 

capital planning within their organization. Though OVW officials said they 

could seek a hiring exemption to fill this slot, they have chosen instead to 

request exemptions to fill more critical vacancies associated with grants 

management.21

Moreover, the grant-making components did not define the duties of staff

responsible for working with the model before staff members were 

brought onboard. Officials from all three grant-making components stated 

that newly assigned staff were not part of the discussions with the 

contractor on the model’s design and development, and required 

additional time to familiarize themselves with the model’s data before they 

could begin making updates. For example, the individual OVW tasked 

with model updates said that, initially, nearly 75 percent of her time was 

spent familiarizing herself with the model in order to get up to speed on 

the model’s capabilities. Although all three grant-making components 

currently have staff onboard to continue updates to the data in the 

models, it is unclear if these assignments can be sustained and thus, if 

the roles and responsibilities can be institutionalized. For example, COPS 

Office officials stated that the one COPS Office staff member originally 

assigned responsibility for managing the model left the Department. Her 

successor, an accountant within the COPS Office, has been assigned to 

work with the model as time permits, given her other officially assigned 

workload and responsibilities. Similarly, the staff member OVW assigned 

with responsibility for data updates is a contractor and OVW is not certain 

about renewal of the company’s contract. Going forward, clearly 

Officials from the COPS Office stated they have only one 

human capital position authorized and filled, and have had to “borrow” 

staff from other units in order to complete their model updates. Because 

the three grant-making components already faced constrained staffing 

and limited personnel resources prior to accepting the additional 

responsibility of operating the models, it was even more imperative that in 

preparation for model deployment, they identified the human capital 

capacity needed to carry out the related staffing model responsibilities.

 

21Each grant-making component decides how many hiring exemptions to seek and then 

sends these requests to JMD for review and recommendation. JMD reviews each 

exemption for a number of elements, which, among others, includes the position 

description, an explanation for why current staff are unable to fulfill the duties and 

responsibilities of the position, and the availability of funding to support the position in the 

future. If JMD recommends approval, JMD forwards the hiring exemption request to the 

Deputy Attorney General for a final decision. 
 

Page 26 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

delineating roles and responsibilities would help DOJ institutionalize the 

processes required to manage the staffing models and would enhance 

DOJ’s grant-making components’ ability to sustain, and, more importantly, 

facilitate workforce planning and budget development decision-making. 

The grant-making components partially met this practice, as table 10 

illustrates. Ensuring adequate training for staff assigned to update and 

operate the models includes ensuring a mechanism exists for providing 

training to staff and ensuring that training is comprehensive and sufficient 

to enable successful operation of the model.

Table 10: Extent to Which Grant-Making Components Took Actions to Ensure 

Adequate Training for Staff Assigned to Update and Operate the Models

Leading practice: ensure adequate training ◑ • Ensure mechanism exists for providing training to staff ● • Ensure training is comprehensive and sufficient to enable successful 

operation of the model  

 Not met

◑ Partially met

● Fully met

Source: GAO.

JMD ensured a mechanism existed for providing staff training by stating 

in the contract that the contractor would be required to provide training 

sufficient to allow grant-making component staff to operate the staffing 

model and update it to enable ongoing use. To meet this requirement and 

with JMD’s concurrence, the contractor delivered User Guides to each 

grant-making component, which were designed to serve as a training 

mechanism for staff who would be updating and using the models.

However, the components did not ensure that the guides were 

comprehensive and sufficient to enable successful operation of the 

models. Specifically, they did not thoroughly examine the content of the 

guides upon receipt, but rather waited to review them carefully until they 

began to update the models. Moreover, component officials told us of 

their varying levels of satisfaction with the User Guides—one component 

indicated that the guide was helpful; a second component reported that it 

was useful, but noted several functions that the Guide should have 

included or better explained; and the third component stated that the 

guide did not meet its needs. When we asked the grant-making 

component officials about training beyond the guides, OJP and COPS 

Ensure Adequate Training for 

Staff Assigned to Update and 

Operate the Models 
 

Page 27 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

Office officials said the contractor did not provide any, while the OVW 

official who currently reviews the model’s updates said she recalled some 

hands-on training from the contractor to facilitate her use. Since none of 

the grant-making components’ primary model users were in their current 

positions when the contractor was competing its work, all reported having 

to develop familiarity with the models via hands-on, on-the-job exposure. 

As a result of not receiving training, components have experienced delays 

in updating the staffing model to enable its use for budget formulation and 

workforce planning. Model users from OJP, the COPS Office, and OVW 

reported that the delays in updating the models resulted, in part, from 

needing additional time to familiarize themselves with the model. As users 

have gained more familiarity with the models, some of the components 

have made efforts to train other users, which is consistent with the 

contractor’s notes in one of its planning documents, which states that in a 

hiring freeze environment, capacity gaps will have to be addressed 

through other means, such as cross training. For example, OVW officials 

stated that the individual currently assigned primary responsibility for 

updating the model began to cross-train another OVW human resources 

staff member. As stated previously, the COPS Office recently lost its 

original model user due to attrition, and as of August 2012, has utilized a 

staff accountant whose workload contained additional capacity in order to 

proceed with model updates. Like the COPS Office, OJP officials have 

just one person assigned to the model and no back-fill available. 

The grant-making components fully met this leading practice, as table 11 

illustrates. Leveraging stakeholders’ knowledge and experience in 

designing and developing the models includes involving stakeholders in 

establishing contractor terms of work and involving stakeholders in design 

and development. 

Table 11: Extent to Which Grant-Making Components Took Actions to Leverage 

Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Experience in Designing and Developing the Models 

Leading practice: leverage stakeholders ●  Involve stakeholders in establishing contractor terms of work ●  Involve stakeholders in design and development ● 

 Not met

◑ Partially met

● Fully met

Source: GAO. 

Leverage Stakeholders’ 

Knowledge and Experience in 

Designing and Developing the 

Models 
 

Page 28 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

Stakeholder involvement was evident in establishing the contractor terms 

of work. According to OJP officials, OJP produced the initial draft 

statement of work to outline the scope and terms of the prospective 

contractor’s work, and stakeholders from the COPS Office and OVW 

provided their input by commenting on the draft. Further, OJP, the COPS 

Office, and OVW each appointed an ACOR to serve as a stakeholder on 

the technical evaluation panel, which was tasked with evaluating the 

contractor’s proposal. As part of its proposal selection process, this 

technical evaluation panel submitted two sets of follow-up questions to 

the prospective contractor seeking additional information and clarifying 

aspects of the proposal. For example, the panel desired clarification, 

which they eventually received, on how the contractor would compare the 

grant-making components’ operations against other public and private 

organizations. The panel then evaluated the prospective contractor’s 

responses in conjunction with the overall proposal before DOJ finalized 

the contract. From the COR’s perspective, leveraging the perspectives of 

stakeholders from the grant-making components—via this panel—helped 

ensure that the stakeholders were engaged in the contractor selection 

process and ultimately in agreement regarding the services the contractor 

aimed to provide.

Stakeholder involvement also was evident during the models’ design and 

development. As noted, DOJ’s initial request for proposal required the 

contractor to submit monthly progress reports, and the lead COR 

reviewed these to check for completeness and timeliness of the work. 

According to officials from OJP, the COPS Office, and OVW, the lead 

COR reached out to the ACORs to confirm with these stakeholders that 

the contractor’s work met their needs. For example, officials from the 

COPS Office and OJP stated that when the contractor concluded its 

assessments of the conditions at the COPS Office and OJP at the start of 

the work period, the COR asked each component’s ACOR to accept or 

decline the assessment. Similarly, OVW officials stated that the COR met 

with OVW’s ACOR to discuss the accuracy of the contractor’s 

assessment of the conditions at OVW at the start of the work period. All 

three of the grant-making components reported that their respective 

senior management—yet another set of stakeholders—was involved in 

confirming the accuracy of the contractor’s assessments of each 

component’s existing conditions.

Moving forward, fully incorporating leading practices when updating the 

models for future use will better position the grant-making components to 

capitalize on the models’ capacity and facilitate effective workforce 

planning and budgeting. Specifically, implementing a more rigorous data 
 

Page 29 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

review process with clear methods for confirming the credibility of data 

and verifying the results the staffing models generate; reviewing changes 

to the data in the models to ensure accuracy; defining and determining 

the respective roles and responsibilities of staff involved in reviewing, 

operating, and assisting with the staffing models; and identifying training 

needs that address staff needs to fulfill responsibilities associated with the 

staffing models would better position the grant-making components to 

facilitate effective workforce planning and make sound budget 

development decisions. 

Due to the deficiencies we identified in the design, development, and 

deployment of the staffing models, the grant-making components have 

not used the staffing models to determine workforce gaps, such as critical 

skills and competencies of staff, or to develop long-term human capital 

plans that address these gaps. Additionally, the three grant-making 

components have not yet begun to use the data in the models to inform 

the preparation of annual budget requests. However, officials from all 

three grant-making components stated that they would like to or plan to 

use the models to inform the budget submissions for fiscal year 2015 

funding, but they do not yet have a strategy in place for doing so.

Our prior work examining issues in strategic human capital planning 

highlighted the use of workforce planning tools, such as staffing models, 

to assist organizations in addressing two critical needs in strategic 

workforce planning: (1) aligning an organization’s human capital program 

with its current and emerging mission and programmatic goals, and (2) 

developing long-term strategies for acquiring, developing, and retaining 

staff to achieve programmatic goals. The three grant-making components 

have not yet begun to use the models in either of these two areas, in part, 

because of some of the staffing challenges noted earlier. However, 

according to officials from all three grant-making components, they are 

pursuing various staffing options, such as exemptions to the 

departmentwide hiring freeze to dedicate staff to work on the models, 

reorganizing existing staff and shifting their responsibilities, or using 

contractor personnel, so that they can expand their use of the model 

accordingly.

Grant-Making 

Components Have 

Not Used the Staffing 

Models to Determine 

Workforce Gaps and 

Do Not Have a 

Strategy for Using the 

Models to Inform 

Budget Requests

The Grant-Making 

Components Have Not 

Used the Staffing Models 

to Identify Capacity Gaps, 

but Some Have Used the 

Models to Support 

Ongoing or Operational 

Planning
 

Page 30 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

As of September 2012, OJP received approval for three hiring 

exemptions intended to enhance the component’s human capital 

capacity. According to OJP officials, once they fill these positions—

expected by October 2012—the current, sole human resources specialist 

assigned to update the model will have support from one additional staff 

member. Officials from the COPS Office and OVW stated that they are 

not seeking hiring exemptions to add to their human capital capacity. 

However, according to officials from the COPS Office, they are discussing 

the possibility of moving internal staff from other offices to address their 

human capital needs. OVW officials stated that they are continuing to 

utilize a contracted staff person to work on updates to the model and that 

any hiring exemptions OVW submits will concentrate on positions that 

directly relate to its grant-making responsibilities.

Nevertheless, OJP officials stated that they used the staffing model’s data 

to help determine who among their staff would be eligible for 2012 

Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA) and Voluntary Separation 

Incentives Payment (VSIP)—two OPM initiatives that help components 

resize their workforces. In addition, OJP officials explained that when two 

OJP program offices separately considered whether to seek exemption 

authority to hire more staff, OJP’s Human Resources Division relied on 

the model to provide data on the number and type of positions each office 

already had, and served as one tool to show that consolidation across the 

two offices was plausible. As a result, OJP is currently considering 

consolidation of these offices rather than expanding one or both of them. 

At a more conceptual level, OVW officials said that OVW used the 

model’s data to confirm a previously held workforce planning assumption 

that the workload was increasing as the workforce was decreasing (due 

to attrition and lag time in hiring replacement staff). As such, officials 

reported that they envision the model being useful to them as they 

embark on decisions about whether to reorganize OVW. In particular, 

they said they plan to use the model to show the areas in the grant life 

cycle in which staff members spend most of their time and what 

processes OVW can improve to achieve greater efficiency. In addition, 

the COPS Office’s restructuring is underway, and now that the model 

accurately accounts for their new workload and assignment of 

responsibilities, officials plan to analyze the model’s results for ongoing 

strategic workforce allocations.
 

Page 31 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

The grant-making components reported that they would like to or plan to 

use the models to inform the fiscal year 2015 budget request; however, 

as of September 2012, they did not yet have documented plans in place 

to do this, even though the budget planning process will begin in early 

2013 and according to OJP officials can start as early as late fall 2012.

As noted, the contractor delivered the staffing model in May 2011 based 

on fiscal year 2010 workload and workforce data, which was the most 

recently available at the time. According to grant-making component 

officials, they were unable to use the models to inform their budget 

development decisions in the fall of 2011 (to inform the request for 

funding in fiscal year 2013) because they considered the staffing models’ 

“snapshot” data already too old—that is, not reflective of current 

conditions—for reasonable inclusion. Thus, the grant-making components 

spent the first year after the contractor delivered the model learning its 

functionality and ramping up staff and expertise to update it. The grantmaking components have completed these updates as of September 

2012, and officials from the three grant-making components reported that 

they would like to or plan to use the staffing models to inform the 

upcoming budget request for fiscal year 2015. Consequently, the grantmaking components could better position themselves to do so by 

beginning the planning process early. In this regard, standard practices 

for project management state that managing a project involves, among 

other things:

• developing a timeline with milestone dates, including specific points 

throughout the project to reassess efforts underway and determine 

whether changes are necessary;

• establishing coordination to understand the appropriate roles of those 

involved with a project and how they engage the various stakeholder 

groups; and

• providing guidance regarding the direction of a project and changes 

affecting the outcome of projects.22

 

22Project Management Institute, The Standard for Program Management® (Newtown 

Square, PA: 2006). The Project Management Institute is an organization that provides 

guidelines, rules, and characteristics for project management.

The Components Do Not 

Yet Have a Documented 

Strategy to Ensure the 

Staffing Models Inform the 

Fiscal Year 2015 Budget 

Request
 

Page 32 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

Implementing a documented project management strategy to include 

timelines, coordination efforts, and guidance for using the data in the 

staffing models to inform the fiscal year 2015 budget submission would 

help the grant-making components leverage the quantifiable workforce 

and workload data that the models generate and provide context and 

justification to the Congress for the funding levels they request.

According to grant-making component officials, working with the data in 

the staffing models necessitates time to validate and verify data going into 

the models, update the models, and review updates to the models for 

completeness and accuracy. However, officials from the grant-making 

components provided no specific timeframes to address a comprehensive 

analysis of the data, which could ensure the full incorporation of leading 

practices, as we have discussed. Rather, officials from the COPS Office 

and OVW stated that they each anticipate twice-a-year updates to the 

data in the staffing models: (1) when the President’s Budget is prepared, 

and (2) when each component receives its actual appropriation. Officials 

from OJP stated that they also anticipate twice-a-year updates to the data 

in the staffing model, but OJP officials are planning to update the OJP 

model in January of each year and then again at the end of each fiscal 

year. Nevertheless, during the course of our audit, the updates each 

grant-making component had been making to the model have been 

limited to ensuring the data are most current instead of comprehensively 

analyzing the data and determining what the analysis means for 

component operations. Prospectively, officials from all three grant-making 

components stated that it is their goal to conduct a comprehensive

analysis of data in future updates that will help them improve budget 

planning.

Grant-making component officials also explained that time will be 

necessary for those working with the model to coordinate with those 

developing the budget; however, they also have not established timelines 

for such interaction. According to OJP officials, they expect that the 

model’s 2012 data will inform the fiscal year 2015 budget request and 

acknowledge that OJP’s human capital staff will need to share and 

interpret the data in the models with OJP’s budget staff. To this end, OJP 

officials reported in September 2012 that both human capital and budget 

staff have recently held planning meetings but that more time is 

necessary to finalize their plans. Officials from the COPS Office and OVW 

stated that they have not yet set aside time to conduct similar planning 

meetings. According to officials in the COPS office, they brought on a 

new staff member in August 2012 to work on updates, and she will need 

to rely on additional data from other COPS program offices to update the 

Timelines
 

Page 33 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

model with the most current data before informing the fiscal year 2015 

budget request. OVW officials stated that staff constraints have limited 

their ability to start planning meetings between human capital and budget 

staff. The officials emphasized that OVW is a small office, and 

specifically, within the budget and grants management units, staff 

members have been focused on closing out grants for the 2012 fiscal 

year rather than thinking ahead to the 2015 budget cycle. They hope to 

start holding initial meetings by November or December 2012 but these 

plans are tentative. While the offices have begun to discuss the 

importance of timing, without establishing specific timeframes that take 

into account the full incorporation of leading practices, as well as the 

exchange of information between those running the models and those 

developing the budgets, components risk missing an opportunity to 

ensure that the models are sound and reliable and that what they are 

learning is supporting what they are requesting in their budgets.

Staff members from the grant-making components stated they did not yet 

know how they would use the results that the staffing models generated 

to develop and support budget submissions. For example, at this time, 

human capital and budget offices from all three grant-making components 

have demonstrated limited efforts to coordinate their roles and identify 

what information human capital staff will provide to budget staff and what 

the budget office staff responsibilities will be to validate any of the 

analysis the models’ users generate. Moreover, coordination between 

human capital and budget office staff needs to take place not only to 

inform the budget requests, but also to understand the staffing model 

data and the analyses model users are conducting. OJP officials stated 

that human capital and budget staff members have met to discuss 

coordination efforts to prepare OJP’s budget request for fiscal year 2015 

and that they continue to outline roles and responsibilities. Additionally, 

OJP’s Acting Assistant Attorney General issued a memorandum to OJP 

leadership in October 2012 that directed OJP offices to take the staffing 

model into consideration when developing budget requests. The memo 

did not provide specific instructions for how to coordinate, but did 

emphasize the importance of integrating workforce, program, and budget 

planning. Officials from the COPS Office agreed that coordination 

between human capital and budget offices should occur. They reported 

general discussions between the COPS Office Chief of Staff and the 

COPS Office budget unit on how to integrate the model into budget 

development, but acknowledged that they have not discussed specifics 

yet and said they planned to begin formal coordination activities in the 

spring of 2013, which is when DOJ components have typically begun 

preparing for an upcoming budget cycle. OVW officials stated that initial 

Coordination
 

Page 34 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

coordination steps are necessary for budget staff to understand the 

intricacies of the model in order to eventually decide how and what data 

in the model will be most useful to justifying the budget. However, OVW 

officials reported that limited staff and growing demands on their time 

have limited their ability to begin coordination efforts between human 

capital and budget staff. 

As sound project management approaches suggest, involving planning 

and operational personnel early is meant to avoid making decisions in 

isolation that may waste resources and time. The future coordination 

efforts between human capital and budget office staff should help 

determine how the staffing models can best be used to justify any 

requests for new funds. Mechanisms to facilitate coordination and 

collaboration could enhance DOJ grant-making components’ budget 

submissions by making them more consistent, accurate, and robust. 

Further, because development of the fiscal year 2015 budget submission 

will reflect the components’ first attempt to integrate analyses from the 

staffing models, it is increasingly important that conversations between 

human capital and budget staff begin early and be well-coordinated.

Staff members at each grant-making component have become more 

familiar with the staffing models and their capabilities, but to date, there 

has been no guidance about what analyses may be needed or useful 

when developing budget requests. According to JMD officials, they do not 

intend to dictate how and to what extent the components incorporate the 

models into their budget submissions. JMD officials told us that during 

their routine review of the budget justifications the grant-making 

components submit, they may question the level of detail included or 

omitted, but they do not envision their role as ensuring inclusion or even 

securing consistency across the three grant-making components’ 

requests. From the perspective of JMD’s budget staff, JMD has never 

inserted itself into DOJ components’ budget development processes and 

has no directive from the Attorney General to do so. Further, JMD does 

not plan to modify its approach given the presence of the staffing models. 

While guidance may not be necessary from JMD, guidance from each 

grant-making component outlining the process for developing budget 

submissions through incorporation of the model’s data could help ensure 

that on a routine basis, updates to the model incorporate leading 

practices and that budget development discussions are based on sound 

and reliable data and associated workforce and workload analyses.

Developing, documenting, and implementing a strategy with timelines, 

coordination mechanisms between budget and human capital staff, and 

Guidance
 

Page 35 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

guidance on how to incorporate the models’ into budget development 

could better position grant-making components to use the quantifiable 

data the models provide to support the funds they seek in their budget 

requests. Having such a strategy could also provide managers at the 

grant-making components and other decision makers insights into the 

grant-making components’ overall progress in using the models and 

provide a basis for determining what, if any, additional resources are 

needed to best manage their operations.

During fiscal year 2011, the workforce at OJP, the COPS Office, and 

OVW collectively administered nearly 27,000 active grants involving $3.5 

billion in appropriated funds. Given the volume and overall size of these 

grants, it is critical that OJP, the COPS Office, and OVW use their 

resources in the most efficient and effective way possible. Since 2010, 

DOJ has embarked on an effort to quantify the grant-making components’ 

workloads, assess their workforces, and identify and address any gaps by 

funding the development of staffing models. As a result, DOJ’s grantmaking components now have increased capacity to engage in 

systematic and strategic workforce planning.

The grant-making components have partially met leading practices to 

ensure the models are sound and reliable, but can enhance their efforts 

to more fully meet leading practices. For example, not fully checking for 

data accuracy upon the model’s receipt and attempting to correct for 

errors after the contractor’s term had ended challenge the components’ 

abilities to put the models to their intended use—to determine workforce 

gaps, such as critical skills and competencies of staff, and to develop 

long-term human capital plans that address these gaps. Fully meeting 

leading practices would provide DOJ reasonable assurance that, among 

other things, the models’ data are accurate, the results are valid, and the 

staffing models provide a sound and reliable basis for components to 

update their models, analyze the data in the future, and inform workforce 

and budget planning. Further, concentrating for so many months on 

updating the models’ baseline data has left the components without a 

strategy for analyzing the models’ results and applying what they learn to 

the development of their budget requests. By developing, documenting, 

and implementing a strategy that includes timelines, coordination 

principles, and guidance for incorporating the staffing models’ analyses 

into their budget development processes, the components may be better 

positioned to leverage the quantifiable workforce and workload data the 

models generate, inform the Congress of their needs, and more fully 

justify any requests for additional funds in the future.

Conclusions
 

Page 36 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

We recommend that the Attorney General direct the leadership of OJP, 

the COPS Office, and OVW take the following two actions.

• fully incorporate leading practices to ensure that their respective 

staffing models are sound and reliable, by:

• implementing a more rigorous data review process with clear 

methods for confirming the credibility of data and verifying the 

results the staffing models generate;

• reviewing changes to the data in the models to ensure accuracy 

and documenting and maintaining records of changes to protect 

model integrity;

• defining and determining the respective roles and responsibilities 

of staff involved in reviewing, operating, and assisting with the 

staffing models; and

• identifying training needs that address staff needs to fulfill 

responsibilities associated with the staffing models.

• develop, document, and implement a strategy that includes timelines, 

coordination efforts, and guidance for building budget submissions 

that takes into account the full incorporation of leading practices to 

ensure the staffing models are sound and reliable.

We provided a draft of this report to DOJ for comment and received 

written comments on the draft report, which are reproduced in full in 

appendix II. DOJ concurred with both recommendations and described 

actions it has underway or plans to take to address the recommendations.

DOJ agreed with the first recommendation that the leadership of OJP, the 

COPS Office and OVW fully incorporate leading practices to ensure that 

their respective staffing models are sound and reliable, noting that it 

appreciated our evaluation of the staffing models. DOJ stated that with 

available resources, the grant-making components plan to continue to 

integrate workforce planning into their operational, programmatic, and 

budget planning processes, and expressed their commitment to a longterm, systematic, and data-driven approach to doing so. Additionally, DOJ 

reported that the grant-making components are currently benchmarking 

against federal agencies and the private sector to ensure that their 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments
 

Page 37 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

workforce and talent management efforts are developed and/or enhanced 

based on best practices and industry standards.

DOJ agreed with the second recommendation to develop, document, and 

implement a strategy that includes timelines, coordination efforts, and 

guidance for building budget submissions that takes into account the full 

incorporation of leading practices to ensure the staffing models are sound 

and reliable. DOJ noted that staff in the human capital, program, and 

budget offices of the grant-making components will continue to 

collaborate on a strategic approach to the development of future budget 

submissions and work to establish policies and procedures to govern this 

coordinated effort.

We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General, selected 

congressional committees, and other interested parties. In addition, the 

report is available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in 

appendix III.

David C. Maurer

Director

Homeland Security and Justice Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 38 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

This report addresses the following questions: (1) to what extent have the 

grant-making components met leading practices to ensure that their 

staffing models are sound and reliable?, and (2) how have the 

components used the models to inform their workforce planning efforts 

and to what extent have the components begun to use the models for 

budget development?

To determine the extent to which the three grant-making components 

incorporated leading practices to ensure that their staffing models are 

sound and reliable, we developed a detailed framework to define six 

leading practices and 15 specific activities, or criteria, they encompass.

The framework covers model design, model development, and model 

deployment—and the six leading practices reflect the specific activities in 

which organizations should engage to ensure the models’ soundness 

(i.e., their validity and reliability). These practices are: (1) accounting for 

risk associated with contracting out model development, (2) ensuring the 

credibility of data used in the models, (3) preserving the integrity of data 

maintained in the models, (4) establishing roles and responsibilities for 

staff assigned to update and operate the models, (5) ensuring adequate 

training for staff assigned to update and operate the models, and (6) 

leveraging stakeholders’ knowledge and experience in designing and 

developing the models. 

We developed this framework primarily using GAO’s Internal Control 

Management and Evaluation Tool.

1 The leading practices are also 

supported by GAO’s Designing Evaluations: 2012 Revision; Federal 

Information System Controls Audit Manual; and Assessing the Reliability 

of Computer-Processed Data.

2

 

1

Before applying the framework, and to 

understand how the staffing models are structured, we participated in a 

demonstration of the models in which each grant-making component 

presented its respective version of the model. During this demonstration, 

officials responsible for operating the model at their respective 

components walked us through the various model functions, identified 

their underlying data sources, and explained the model outputs they 

produced. We also independently reviewed the models and the 

associated deliverables the contractor provided. Finally, we interviewed 

grant-making component officials assigned to operate the model to 

GAO-01-1008G. 

2

GAO-12-208G; GAO-09-232G; GAO-09-680G. 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 39 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

confirm our understanding of the models’ structure. Then, to apply the 

framework, we assessed the steps the grant-making components told us 

they took to ensure the models were sound and reliable and 

benchmarked those steps against the leading practices and criteria we 

identified. A designation of “fully met” indicates that a component 

provided evidence that satisfied the entire criteria for the respective 

leading practice; “partially met” indicates that a component provided 

evidence that satisfied some portion of the criteria; and “did not meet” 

indicates that a component provided no evidence that satisfied any 

portion of the criteria.

For example, to understand how the Department’s Justice Management 

Division (JMD) and its three grant-making components worked with the 

contractor to design and develop the model, we interviewed the lead 

Contracting Officer Representative (COR)—a management analyst within 

JMD—as well as senior officials from the three grant-making components 

responsible for grant administration, human capital management, and 

budget planning. Additionally, we interviewed these officials to understand 

how the grant-making components have used the models for workforce 

planning and budget development efforts since receiving the models from 

the contractor. We also interviewed the staff in each grant-making 

component tasked with updating and executing the model to get their 

perspectives on the training they received, their prior workforce planning 

backgrounds, and the time they spent working with the model. In addition, 

we analyzed documentation about the grant-making components’ 

practices related to updating the models, as well as the contractor’s 

guidelines for doing so. We then compared the grant-making 

components’ practices for designing, developing, and deploying the 

models for eventual use to the leading practices we identified and then 

assessed whether the grant-making components’ actions fully met, 

partially met, or did not meet the criteria. We also assessed each grantmaking component’s model independently, using a discovery method 

approach, wherein we examined a small number of formulas and 

calculations. While we were not attempting to develop a specific error rate 

per se, this discovery method approach permitted us to make conclusions 

about the risk for (a) additional errors in other parts of the model we did 

not examine, and (b) potential errors in the model’s outputs.

To describe how the three grant-making components have used the 

models to inform their workforce planning efforts and to determine to what 

extent to which they have begun to use the models for budget 

development, we interviewed officials from the three grant-making 

components and JMD officials on their workforce planning efforts prior to 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 40 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

having the staffing models. In particular, we interviewed staff members 

from each of the three grant-making components who were working in a 

human capital capacity and had direct oversight or responsibility for the 

staffing models. In these interviews, we discussed the extent, if any, to 

which each grant-making component was using the model to inform its

activities, future plans to integrate the model into its budget development 

process, and the role JMD plays in facilitating these efforts. In addition, 

we reviewed related documents including each grant-making 

component’s initial staffing models provided by the contractor in May 

2011 and the updated models completed by each grant-making 

component as of September 2012. In reviewing the three grant-making 

components’ plans to integrate the models into their budget development 

process, we relied on standard practices for project management, The 

Standard for Project Management, developed by the Project Management 

Institute.3 Through interviews with component officials at the three grantmaking components and review of documentation including meeting 

notes, we reviewed the grant-making components’ use of the standard 

practices for project management including the development of timelines 

with milestone dates, coordination efforts between human capital and 

budget staff at each grant-making component, and guidance regarding 

the direction and use of the models.

 

3

Project Management Institute, The Standard for Program Management® (Newtown 

Square, PA: 2006). The Project Management Institute is an organization that provides 

guidelines, rules, and characteristics for project management. 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Justice 

Page 41 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Justice
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Justice 

Page 42 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department

of Justice 

Page 43 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Justice 

Page 44 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 45 GAO-13-92 DOJ Workforce Planning 

David C. Maurer, (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, key contributors to this report 

were Joy Booth (Assistant Director), Lydia Araya, Sylvia Bascopé, 

Christine Hanson, William Mowbray, Daniel Rodriguez, Rebecca Shea, 

and Janet Temko.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(441079)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.