JUSTICE GRANT 

PROGRAMS

DOJ Could Improve 

Decision-Making 

Documentation and 

Better Assess Results 

of DNA Backlog 

Reduction Program 

Funds

Report to Congressional Committees

July 2013

GAO-13-605

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-605, a report to 

congressional committees

July 2013

JUSTICE GRANT PROGRAMS

DOJ Could Improve Decision-Making Documentation 

and Better Assess Results of DNA Backlog 

Reduction Program Funds

Why GAO Did This Study

Since 2008, Congress has 

appropriated more than $100 million 

each year to the Department of Justice 

(DOJ) that may be used, among other 

things, to reduce DNA backlogs and 

enhance crime laboratory capacity. 

NIJ, within DOJ, is responsible for, 

among other things, providing awards 

for DNA analysis and forensic 

activities. NIJ’s DNA Backlog 

Reduction Program was established to 

provide grants to state and local 

governments with the intent, in part, of 

reducing the backlog of DNA samples. 

The conference report accompanying 

the Consolidated and Further 

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012, 

mandated GAO to examine, among 

other things, DNA analysis funds. This 

report addresses (1) how NIJ has 

allocated its DNA and forensic program 

appropriation over the past 5 fiscal 

years, (2) the extent that NIJ has a 

process to determine its funding 

priorities for its DNA and forensic 

program appropriation, and (3) the 

extent that NIJ verifies data on grant 

results submitted by grantees and 

measures the outcomes of the DNA 

Backlog Reduction Program. GAO 

reviewed relevant appropriations, NIJ

funding documentation, and data from

fiscal years 2008 through 2012, and 

interviewed NIJ officials. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that NIJ clearly 

document the rationale for annual 

funding priorities, develop a costeffective approach to verify the 

reliability of grantee performance data,

and revise its performance measure to 

reflect actual completed cases. DOJ 

agreed with GAO’s recommendations 

and outlined steps to address them.

What GAO Found

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) allocated funding for various DNA and 

other forensic science activities, with the majority of the available $691 million 

from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 going to state and local governments to 

reduce the DNA backlog. Specifically, over this 5-year period, 64 percent was 

allocated through initiatives that directly benefit state and local efforts to reduce 

DNA backlogs and build DNA analysis capacity. The largest initiative was NIJ’s 

DNA Backlog Reduction Program, and other DNA backlog initiatives included 

DNA analysis of cold cases, among others. A smaller portion (31 percent) went 

to other forensic sciences initiatives, such as research and development and 

training, although NIJ officials stated that funding these initiatives may have longterm benefits for reducing the DNA backlog. The remainder of the funding went 

toward other activities, such as management and administration.

NIJ has a process in place to determine DNA and forensic program funding 

priorities, but its decisions regarding these priorities are not clearly documented. 

According to NIJ officials, the rationale for funding the DNA Backlog Reduction 

Program versus other initiatives is documented in briefing slides, but these 

documents do not show NIJ’s rationale for how funding priorities are determined.

For example, while the budget documents for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 show 

the final amounts NIJ decided to allocate to various initiatives, these documents 

do not provide details on the justifications for how funding levels were determined 

for each initiative. Without a clearly documented process that demonstrates the 

rationale for NIJ’s annual funding priorities, there is limited transparency 

regarding how and why the agency is allocating its funding.

NIJ could verify data and revise its performance measure to better assess the 

DNA Backlog Reduction Program. NIJ assesses performance of this program by 

requiring grantees to submit reports every 6 months that, in part, outline their 

progress in meeting program goals and objectives. However, NIJ does not have 

an approach to verify the reliability of the data—testing data to ensure data 

quality—and as a result, faces continuing data errors. Verifying these data would 

help ensure that the data are reliable enough to show that the program is 

successfully meeting its goals. In addition, NIJ has a performance measure to 

assess the results of this program—percent of reduction in DNA backlog

casework—but it is a projection of DNA casework that grantees expect to 

complete as opposed to an actual tabulation of completed cases. While 

measuring annual performance for multiyear grants can be challenging because 

the completed number of cases is not known until after the grant period closes,

taking steps to analyze performance data on actual cases completed could help 

NIJ to better assess actual results.

View GAO-13-605. For more information, 

contact Michele Mackin at (202) 512-4841 or 

MackinM@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-13-605 DOJ DNA Analysis Grants

Letter 1

Background 4

NIJ Has Allocated Funding for Various DNA and Other Forensic 

Science Activities, and the Majority Goes Directly to Reducing 

the DNA Backlog 9

NIJ Has a Process in Place to Determine DNA and Forensic 

Program Funding Priorities, but Decisions Are Not Clearly 

Documented 16

Verification of Data Reliability and Revision of Its Performance 

Measure Could Help NIJ Better Assess Performance of the DNA 

Backlog Reduction Program 19

Conclusions 24

Recommendations for Executive Action 24

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 25

Appendix I Recipients of Awards Made by the National Institute of Justice 

for the DNA and Forensic Program, Fiscal Years 2008 

through 2012 28

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Justice 30

Appendix III GAO Contact Staff and Acknowledgments 33

Tables

Table 1: National Institute of Justice DNA and Forensic Program 

Initiatives Funded to Directly Benefit State and Local 

Government Efforts to Reduce the DNA Backlog and Build 

Laboratory Capacity, Fiscal Years 2008-2012 7

Table 2: National Institute of Justice DNA and Other Forensic 

Sciences Initiatives That Do Not Directly Benefit State and 

Local Governments in Reducing the DNA Backlog, Fiscal 

Years 2008-2012 8

Table 3: Recipients of NIJ DNA and Forensic Program 

Appropriation, Fiscal Years 2008-2012 29

Contents
Page ii GAO-13-605 DOJ DNA Analysis Grants

Figures

Figure 1: Allocation of Funding of DNA and Forensic Program 

Appropriations for Initiatives and Other Costs, Fiscal 

Years 2008-2012 11

Figure 2: Annual Percentage of Funds Provided for DNA Backlog 

Reduction Program and other DNA Backlog Initiatives, 

Fiscal Years 2008-2012 13

Figure 3: Proportion of Funds Allocated for Forensic Science 

Initiatives not Directly Benefiting State and Local Efforts 

to Reduce the DNA Backlog, Fiscal Years 2008-2012 14

Figure 4: Recipients of Grants and Other Awards Funded through 

the DNA and Forensic Program Appropriation, Fiscal 

Years 2008-2012 28

Abbreviations

DOJ Department of Justice

GMS Grants Management System

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

NIJ National Institute of Justice

OJP Office of Justice Programs

OMB Office of Management and Budget

TWG Technology Working Group

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-13-605 DOJ DNA Analysis Grants

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

July 31, 2013

Congressional Committees

Since 2008, Congress has appropriated more than $100 million each year 

to the Department of Justice (DOJ) that may be used to reduce DNA 

backlogs and enhance crime laboratory capacity. Among other things, 

these funds are intended to be used for DNA analysis and capacity 

enhancement, as well as other forensic activities, such as research and 

development in crime scene blood spatter or footprint impressions. The 

Office of Justice Programs (OJP), established by the Justice Assistance 

Act of 1984, is the primary grant-making arm of DOJ. Within OJP, the 

National Institute of Justice (NIJ), the research arm of DOJ, is responsible 

for evaluating programs and policies that respond to crime, and providing 

and administering awards for DNA analysis and forensic activities, among 

other criminal justice activities.

DOJ officials have reported that while federal funding has been made 

available to state and local governments to reduce DNA backlogs, the 

demand for DNA testing continues to exceed the capacity of laboratories 

to process these samples. According to DOJ, the reasons for the backlog 

include (1) the increased amount of DNA evidence that already has been 

collected in criminal cases, and (2) expanded efforts by federal and state 

governments to collect DNA samples from convicted offenders and 

arrested persons. As reported by state and local laboratories funded by 

DOJ, NIJ estimated that in 2011—the most recent estimate—the yearend backlog for DNA evidence collected from crime scenes was 

approximately 91,000 cases, and additional crimes can be committed by 

serial offenders as analysis of evidence is delayed. NIJ’s DNA Backlog 

Reduction Program (DNA Backlog Reduction Program) provides grants to 

state and local governments with the intent, among other things, of 

reducing the backlog of DNA samples.1

In making appropriations to DOJ for “DNA-related and forensic programs 

and activities,” Congress has specified the amounts to be obligated for 

 1

Grantees of this program can use funding to analyze cases containing DNA evidence or 

can analyze samples of DNA evidence taken from convicted offenders or arrested 

individuals, or both, in accordance with state laws. Grantees may also use funds to 

increase laboratory capacity. 
Page 2 GAO-13-605 DOJ DNA Analysis Grants

specific programs and activities. For example, DOJ has been directed to 

use a large portion of the funds for “a DNA analysis and capacity 

enhancement program and for other local, State, and Federal forensic 

activities, including the purposes authorized under section 2 of the DNA 

Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog 

Grant Program).” Throughout this report, we refer to these latter funds as 

the ‘DNA and forensic program appropriation.’

The conference report accompanying the Consolidated and Further 

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012—appropriating funds for DOJ and 

various other agencies—mandated GAO to examine the use of funds 

awarded for DNA analysis and capacity enhancement for the past 5 

years.2

To carry out the mandate, we addressed the following questions:

• How has NIJ allocated its DNA and forensic program appropriation 

over the past 5 fiscal years?

• To what extent does NIJ have a process to determine its funding 

priorities for its DNA and forensic program appropriation?

• To what extent does NIJ verify data on grant results submitted by 

grantees and measure the outcomes of the DNA Backlog Reduction 

Program?

To determine how NIJ allocated DNA and forensic program funds, we 

reviewed relevant appropriations from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 and 

compared related NIJ expenditures and award data for the same time 

period.3 Specifically, to determine the amount of the appropriation that 

went to DNA backlog reduction purposes or other forensic science 

purposes, we reviewed NIJ awards and expenditure data using DOJ and 

OJP financial systems that track expenditures, OJP’s electronic system 

for grant management, and hard copies of awards not contained in the 

electronic grant system. Using the awards’ purpose statements, we 

 2

H.R. Rep. No. 112-284, at 247 (Conf. Rep.). During the time period of our review from 

fiscal years 2008 through 2012, Congress appropriated funds for other programs that 

related to DNA analysis in state and local units of government. However, the scope of this 

review focused only on the specific appropriation available for “DNA analysis and capacity 

enhancement.”

3

We included in our definition of “DNA and forensic program appropriation” amounts for 

fiscal years 2008 through 2012, although the appropriation language for fiscal year 2008 

differed to some extent. 
Page 3 GAO-13-605 DOJ DNA Analysis Grants

categorized the awards into those used for DNA backlog reduction 

purposes, other DNA-related efforts and those used for other forensic 

sciences purposes. We then solicited and incorporated input from NIJ 

officials to verify how we categorized each award. We assessed the 

reliability of these data by conducting electronic testing of the data and 

interviewing NIJ’s managers responsible for the data. We determined the 

data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of determining how NIJ 

allocated DNA and forensic program funds.

To determine the extent to which NIJ has a process to determine funding 

priorities for its DNA and forensic program appropriation, we reviewed NIJ 

documentation outlining NIJ’s annual process for determining annual 

funding priorities. The available documentation consisted of briefing slides 

for fiscal years 2008 through 2011 and budget memos for fiscal years 

2012 and 2013. We also interviewed NIJ officials knowledgeable about 

the agency’s annual funding priority process. We compared NIJ’s 

processes with requirements for documenting key decisions outlined in 

the Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.4

To determine the extent to which NIJ verifies data on grant results 

submitted by grantees and measures the outcome of its DNA Backlog 

Reduction Program, we reviewed NIJ performance information collected 

from grantees from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 used to assess the 

results of this program, as well as guidance NIJ provided to grantees on 

reporting performance data. We also reviewed OJP policies and guidance 

outlining monitoring requirements for assessing grantee progress and 

performance. To gain a better understanding of NIJ’s monitoring efforts, 

we reviewed monitoring documents for a sample of 11 awards—including 

8 grants, 1 contract, and 2 interagency agreements5

—to include different 

NIJ-funded efforts, such as the DNA Backlog Reduction Program and 

other forensic science efforts. Although our review of this sample cannot 

be generalized to all of NIJ’s monitoring efforts, it helped to inform our 

understanding of NIJ’s efforts to assess results and measure 

performance. We also interviewed NIJ officials responsible for assessing 

 4

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999).

5

Grants are provided to eligible entities, such as state and local governments, to conduct 

DNA analysis or research, among other things. Contracts are official agreements with 

various non-government entities to perform services. Interagency agreements are awards 

provided to other federal agencies.
Page 4 GAO-13-605 DOJ DNA Analysis Grants

performance and outcomes of the DNA Backlog Reduction Program. We 

compared NIJ’s efforts with OJP data reporting requirements6 for 

complying with the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 

(GPRA).7 We also compared NIJ’s efforts with requirements for verifying 

data and assessing performance outlined in Office of Management and 

Budget guidance, GPRA, and our prior work.8

We conducted this performance audit from June 2012 to July 2013 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.

OJP’s bureaus and offices provide grants and other awards to various 

organizations, including state and local governments, universities, and 

private entities, which are intended to develop the nation’s capacity to 

prevent and control crime, administer justice, and assist crime victims. 

Within OJP, NIJ serves as DOJ’s research and development agency and 

provides evidence-based knowledge and tools to address crime and 

justice challenges, particularly at the state and local levels. As part of this 

mission, NIJ provides awards from the DNA and forensic program 

appropriation and administers these awards for the purpose of DNA 

analysis and capacity enhancement and for other forensic science 

 6

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, 

2011 Financial Guide (Washington, D.C.: July 2012).

7

Pub.L.No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285, as amended by the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, 

Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866. Under GPRA, agencies are required to hold 

programs accountable to Congress and the public by establishing performance goals, 

identifying performance measures used to indicate progress toward meeting the goals, 

and using the results to improve performance as necessary.

8

Office of Management and Budget, Circular No. A-11: Preparation, Submission, and 

Execution of the Budget, (Washington, D.C.: August 3, 2012); GAO, Executive Guide: 

Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act, 

GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June 1, 1996); The Results Act: An Evaluator’s 

Guide to Assessing Agency Annual Performance Plans, GAO/GGD-10.1.20 (Washington, 

D.C.: April 1998); Performance Plans: Selected Approaches for Verification and Validation 

of Agency Performance Information, GAO/GGD-99-139 (Washington, D.C.: July 30, 

1999).

Background
Page 5 GAO-13-605 DOJ DNA Analysis Grants

purposes. Within NIJ, the Office of Investigative and Forensic Sciences is 

responsible for administering awards for these purposes. According to 

OJP, approximately seven NIJ staff members within the Office of 

Investigative and Forensic Sciences are responsible for managing and 

monitoring funds associated with the DNA and forensic program 

appropriation.

NIJ prioritizes initiatives it will fund from the DNA and forensic program 

appropriation on an annual basis and provides awards through various 

funding mechanisms, including grants and nongrant agreements as 

described below. NIJ’s award mechanism varies depending on the type of 

initiative being funded and the type of recipient receiving the funds.

• Grants9

• NIJ formula discretionary grants: Awards provided under a 

formula set by DOJ and based primarily on the violent crime rate. 

The DNA Backlog Reduction Program10 is the only formula grant 

program awarded through the DNA and forensic program 

appropriation.11

• Other discretionary grants: Awards provided to eligible entities, 

which vary depending on the purpose and requirements of the 

 9

During the period of this review, from fiscal years 2008 through 2012, the vast majority of 

grants provided by NIJ through this appropriation were a form of grant called a 

cooperative agreement. Cooperative agreements are similar to grants, the primary 

difference being that cooperative agreements include substantial involvement by the 

agency in carrying out the activity in the agreement. See 31 U.S.C. § 6305. For the 

purposes of this report, we refer to these agreements as grants. 

10The purposes of the NIJ DNA Backlog Reduction Program were generally similar to the 

purposes of section 2 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (the Debbie 

Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 14135) had during the fiscal 

years we reviewed. During that period, the authorizing language for the Debbie Smith 

DNA Backlog Grant Program provided authority to DOJ to make grants to state and local 

governments for several different purposes, and directed DOJ to award specific 

percentages of the funds for certain of these purposes; for example, 40 percent was to 

carry out DNA analyses of samples from crime scenes. 42 U.S.C. § 14135 (a)(2), (c)(3). 

However, because the DNA and forensic program appropriation did not appropriate funds 

under the authorization for the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program, these 

directives did not apply and DOJ was not required to award a specific percentage of 

available funds to the NIJ DNA Backlog Reduction Program or for any purpose specified 

in the statute for the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program.

11The formula is set by DOJ and is based primarily on the violent crime rate in each state 

from 2 years prior to the grant’s award.

Funding Mechanisms
Page 6 GAO-13-605 DOJ DNA Analysis Grants

award. Such grants may be awarded to state and local 

governments, public and private universities, as well as for-profit 

and nonprofit organizations. NIJ’s other discretionary grants are 

generally awarded on a competitive basis.12

• Nongrants

• Interagency agreements: Awards between federal agencies 

establishing an agreement for projects that may cover similar 

topics and initiatives as NIJ’s other discretionary grants. Federal 

agencies may not receive funds through grants; however, they 

may compete for some awards, if eligible, or receive noncompetitive awards, if determined to be appropriate for NIJ’s DNA 

and forensic science activities.

• Contracts: Agreements with various nongovernment entities, 

such as private laboratories, for various services, such as 

conducting certain DNA analytical services or providing other 

technical scientific services.

NIJ funds grants through solicitations, which are formal requests for 

funding proposals outlining goals, eligibility requirements, and the 

instructions for applying to receive grant funding. Federal agencies may 

apply under such solicitations if eligible; however, in such cases, NIJ 

awards federal agencies funds through interagency agreements, and not 

through the solicitation and grant-making process. Contracts are not 

funded through the typical grant-making process, but through requests for 

contract proposals. For the purposes of this report, “initiatives” include all 

awards NIJ funded from the DNA and forensic program appropriation, 

including awards funded through grants, interagency agreements, and 

contracts.

NIJ provides funds under various initiatives for the purposes of reducing 

the DNA backlog and for other forensic sciences needs, including 

research and development and forensic science training. Table 1 

describes NIJ’s initiatives funded from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 

 12NIJ’s policy also allows for non-competitive awards when (1) only one applicant can 

perform the work of the proposed award; (2) the NIJ director has determined in writing that 

urgent, or other compelling, circumstances exist that make it in the public interest to make 

an award non-competitively; (3) a funding recipient is specified by an appropriations act or 

other applicable law; and, (4) recommendations in congressional reports, accompanying 

an appropriations act or other law, recommend an award to a particular recipient, and an 

award may be made consistent with applicable law, including any applicable executive 

orders. 

Initiatives
Page 7 GAO-13-605 DOJ DNA Analysis Grants

through the DNA and forensic program appropriation that directly benefit 

state and local government DNA-related efforts to reduce backlogs and 

build capacity. Throughout this report, we refer to these initiatives as the 

DNA backlog initiatives.

Table 1: National Institute of Justice DNA and Forensic Program Initiatives Funded to Directly Benefit State and Local 

Government Efforts to Reduce the DNA Backlog and Build Laboratory Capacity, Fiscal Years 2008-2012 

Initiative Description of DNA backlog initiative

Formula discretionary grant funding

DNA Backlog Reduction Program Awards available to state and local units of government to, among other things,

reduce the backlog of DNA samples for criminal justice purposes. Such awards may 

provide funding for technicians to work overtime and to obtain DNA analysis supplies, 

among other things. Funding amounts are based primarily on the violent crime rate in 

the state from 2 years prior to the grant’s award, with each state receiving a minimum 

amount.

Other discretionary backlog funding

Convicted Offender and/or Arrestee DNA 

Backlog Reduction Program

Awards provided to eligible states to analyze DNA samples from certain convicted 

offenders and arrestees to be uploaded to the National DNA Index System 

maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation that stores DNA profiles to enable 

laboratories to compare these profiles from DNA samples collected during the 

investigation process nationwide.

This program ended during fiscal year 2010 and was subsumed into the DNA Backlog 

Reduction Program in 2011.

Solving cold cases with DNA Awards provided to states and local units of government to identify, review, and 

investigate violent crime cold cases that have the potential to be solved using DNA 

analysis. A cold case refers to any unsolved criminal case for which all significant 

investigative leads have been exhausted.

Using DNA to identify the missing Awards to assist eligible entities in performing DNA analysis on unidentified human 

remains and samples from family members of missing persons, or to help identify 

missing persons.

Forensic DNA unit efficiency improvement Awards provided to states and local units of government to perform studies for 

implementing novel, capacity-enhancing technologies and processes into their DNA 

laboratories.

Convicted offender private lab analysis Contracts provided directly to private laboratories to assist states in reducing their 

convicted offender and arrestee DNA sample analysis backlogs. Contracts are 

administered by the Office of Justice Programs.

Source: GAO analysis of NIJ information.

Table 2 describes NIJ’s additional initiatives funded through the DNA and 

forensic program appropriation that do not directly benefit the state and 

local government DNA analysis backlog, but address other DNA and 

forensic science challenges identified by the agency from fiscal years 

2008 through 2012.
Page 8 GAO-13-605 DOJ DNA Analysis Grants

Table 2: National Institute of Justice DNA and Other Forensic Sciences Initiatives That Do Not Directly Benefit State and Local 

Governments in Reducing the DNA Backlog, Fiscal Years 2008-2012 

Initiative Description of forensic sciences initiative

Research, development, and evaluation Awards to provide qualified entities funding to conduct basic or applied scientific research 

to increase knowledge of forensic science disciplines, including but not limited to DNA 

analytical methods. Funding is also used to evaluate current forensic science processes 

and programs, including the technical aspects of DNA analysis as well the practical 

effects of current forensic science policy on the criminal justice community.

Forensic science training Awards to provide educational opportunities to state and local practitioners in forensic 

science disciplines, including relevant criminal justice partners. Such areas of forensic 

science include DNA analysis, trace evidence such as explosives detection, and pattern 

evidence such as ballistics identification, among others.

Centers of excellence Awards provided to qualified entities to provide technical and scientific support to crime 

laboratories, law enforcement, and other criminal justice agencies. Such support includes 

testing, evaluation, technology assistance and other services.

National Missing and Unidentified Persons 

System (NamUs) project and support

Awards provided to support the development, administration, and management of NIJ’s 

NamUs system, a national data repository and resource center for missing persons and 

unidentified decedent remains. The database is available to states and local units of 

government as well as the general public. 

Technical assistance Awards provided to support elements of NIJ’s mission related to forensic science for 

activities such as support for DOJ’s criminal justice research website, providing scientific 

editorial activities, and providing forensic science education to policymakers to help them 

address the modern use of DNA analysis to improve the administration of justice.

Meetings and conferences Funding considered a part of technical support for practitioners at the state, local, and 

federal levels to hold forensic science related summits. According to NIJ officials, such 

meetings and conferences are instrumental in developing communities to help adopt new 

forensic science methods among practitioners.

Source: GAO analysis of NIJ information.

OJP policy directs that monitoring be performed to assess the 

performance of programs that support NIJ initiatives. For example, for 

grants, during programmatic monitoring,13 grant managers review 

qualitative information (such as progress reports submitted by grantees 

and supporting documentation on grantee program implementation), and 

 13Assessing programmatic progress and performance of a grant is one type of monitoring 

activity within OJP’s overall monitoring program. Other types of monitoring include 

financial monitoring—to review financial aspects of a grant award and grantee—and 

administrative monitoring—to review compliance with grant terms and conditions, among 

other requirements. Programmatic and financial monitoring are carried out through 

communication with the grantee, desk reviews (reviews of documents in grantees’ files to, 

among other things, assess grantee performance), and in-depth monitoring (consisting of 

site visits and enhanced programmatic desk reviews, which enable program managers to 

follow up on any issues identified during desk reviews).

Monitoring
Page 9 GAO-13-605 DOJ DNA Analysis Grants

quantitative information (such as performance measurement data 

submitted by grantees), to determine grant progress and performance. In 

grant applications, grantees are required to propose grant goals that 

support NIJ’s stated program purpose, the activities through which they 

aim to achieve those goals, and an implementation plan describing 

timelines and steps for the activities. For interagency agreements and 

contracts, OJP and NIJ officials determine the type of monitoring 

documents, such as progress reports, required based on the goals and 

objectives of each specific award.

From fiscal years 2008 through 2012, Congress appropriated 

approximately $691 million to NIJ to provide grant and other awards for 

state and local governments to reduce the DNA backlog and increase 

DNA lab capacity, as well as for other forensic science purposes.14 The 

appropriations language was broad and enabled NIJ to allocate funding 

for a variety of forensic programs at funding levels established by the 

agency.15 As a result, NIJ allocated funds for both its DNA backlog 

initiatives and other forensic science initiatives based on NIJ’s mission 

and annual budgeting priorities. For instance, over the 5-year period, NIJ 

provided funding through the DNA Backlog Reduction Program, other 

discretionary DNA backlog initiatives such as analyzing DNA samples 

from cold cases, and other forensic science initiatives awarded through 

grants and nongrants including research, development, and evaluation; 

forensic science training; and support for the development of best 

practices.

 14NIJ’s available allocation for awarding grants and nongrants does not constitute the 

entire appropriation because OJP initially assesses amounts for OJP-wide management 

and administration, among other things. 

15In 2008, the statutory language differed to some extent; within the appropriation for 

“DNA related and forensic programs,” a certain amount was specified “for a DNA analysis 

and capacity enhancement program including the purposes of section 2 of the DNA 

Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000. . .” Consolidated Appropriations Act 2008, Pub. 

L. No. 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844, 1910 (2007). Unlike the appropriations language for the 

subsequent years of our review, this provision did not also state that funds were available 

“for other local, state, and Federal forensic activities.” According to officials from OJP’s 

Office of the General Counsel, the statute lacked clarity but was reasonably read to give 

the agency authority to permit the use of funds for non-DNA forensic purposes. These 

officials told us they had discussed this issue with congressional appropriations staff at 

that time, and in 2009, the appropriations language explicitly included authority to provide 

funds for both “a DNA analysis and capacity enhancement program” as well as “other . . . 

forensic activities.” 

NIJ Has Allocated 

Funding for Various 

DNA and Other 

Forensic Science 

Activities, and the 

Majority Goes 

Directly to Reducing 

the DNA Backlog
Page 10 GAO-13-605 DOJ DNA Analysis Grants

NIJ allocated the majority—about 64 percent, or $442 million of the 

available $691 million in the DNA and forensic program appropriations—

to DNA backlog initiatives. Our analysis of the data shows that about 

$343 million of this $442 million was awarded through the DNA Backlog 

Reduction Program, and the remaining approximately $98 million was 

awarded through its other DNA backlog initiatives.16 According to NIJ 

officials, these awards directly affected the DNA backlog by providing 

funds to state and local entities for either analyzing DNA samples or 

increasing the capacity of state and local laboratories to conduct DNA 

sample analyses.17 Additionally, NIJ awarded approximately 31 percent, 

or $212 million of the available $691 million, to other DNA and forensic 

science purposes that do not directly reduce the DNA backlog. NIJ 

officials stated that funding from some of these initiatives may have 

indirect or long-term benefits for reducing the DNA backlog. The 

remainder of the funding, $38 million, went toward other activities, such 

as management and administration.18 See figure 1.

 16Amounts related to the DNA Backlog Reduction Program ($343 million) and other DNA 

backlog initiatives ($98 million) do not equal $442 million because of rounding.

17A small portion of awards were provided to entities other than state and local 

governments. For instance, NIJ awarded about $3 million of grants to for-profit companies 

to supplement state and local efforts to identify missing persons through DNA analysis. In 

addition, NIJ awarded about $3 million in contracts to for-profit companies to analyze 

convicted offender and arrestee DNA samples collected by state and local governments. 

18Specifically, the remaining $38 million of the $691 million appropriated went to 

management and administration of OJP activities; was transferred pursuant to statute to 

other research and statistics accounts; or went to adjustments, such as a statutory 

rescission of prior-year unobligated balances. Amounts related to DNA backlog initiatives 

($442 million), initiatives that do not directly reduce the DNA backlog ($212 million), and 

other remaining expenditures ($38 million) do not equal $691 million because of rounding. 
Page 11 GAO-13-605 DOJ DNA Analysis Grants

Figure 1: Allocation of Funding of DNA and Forensic Program Appropriations for 

Initiatives and Other Costs, Fiscal Years 2008-2012

Note: Other expenditures included $27 million assessed for management and administration of OJP 

activities, about $2 million transferred to other research and statistics accounts, and about $9 million 

adjusted at the end of fiscal years through statutory rescissions, for example. OJP assessments are 

not limited to DNA and forensic program activities but may include OJP-wide costs for training, travel, 

and computer infrastructure. Percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding.

We further analyzed the 64 percent of appropriated funding that went 

toward the DNA Backlog Reduction Program and other DNA backlog 

initiatives over the 5-year period. We found that, annually, NIJ generally 

has increased the percentage of funding provided to the DNA Backlog 

Reduction Program, while the overall amount of the DNA and forensic 

program funds available through appropriations and prior year carryover 

decreased from a high of about $153 million in fiscal year 2010 to $118 
Page 12 GAO-13-605 DOJ DNA Analysis Grants

million in fiscal year 2012.19 For instance, in fiscal year 2008, NIJ awarded 

about 36 percent of the total amount available to NIJ to obligate for the 

DNA Backlog Reduction Program. By 2012, NIJ had increased the 

amount to about 63 percent of the total available for obligation. At the 

same time, funds awarded through its other DNA backlog initiatives 

generally decreased. See figure 2 for the proportion of funds provided for 

the DNA Backlog Reduction Program and other backlog initiatives by 

fiscal year.

 19Annual amounts available for obligation do not necessarily equal the total amount 

appropriated for the 5-year period, specifically because unobligated amounts carried over 

to the next fiscal year may increase the amount that OJP and NIJ can obligate beyond the 

enacted appropriation.
Page 13 GAO-13-605 DOJ DNA Analysis Grants

Figure 2: Annual Percentage of Funds Provided for DNA Backlog Reduction 

Program and other DNA Backlog Initiatives, Fiscal Years 2008-2012

Note: Annual amounts available for obligation do not add to the total amount appropriated for the 5-

year period of approximately $691 million because annual amounts carried over to the next fiscal year 

and increased the funding OJP and NIJ could obligate beyond the enacted appropriation.

NIJ officials stated that the increased funding for the DNA Backlog 

Reduction Program was primarily because the agency decided to 

prioritize the program more than its other initiatives. In addition, NIJ 

officials stated that funding also increased when the agency subsumed 

the Convicted Offender and/or Arrestee DNA Backlog Reduction Program 

into the larger DNA Backlog Reduction Program starting in 2011. As a 

result, the new program had a larger scope and provided more money to 

grantees through NIJ’s continued emphasis on this program.

We also analyzed the breakdown of the grants and nongrant awards for 

other forensic science initiatives that do not directly contribute to reducing 
Page 14 GAO-13-605 DOJ DNA Analysis Grants

the DNA backlog.20 From fiscal years 2008 through 2012, this amounted 

to about 31 percent of the $691 million appropriated, or about $212 

million. See figure 3 below for an analysis of funds awarded to other 

forensic science initiatives.

Figure 3: Proportion of Funds Allocated for Forensic Science Initiatives not Directly Benefiting State and Local Efforts to 

Reduce the DNA Backlog, Fiscal Years 2008-2012

Note: Totals are rounded to the nearest $0.1 million, and percentages are rounded to the nearest 

percent.

 20Unlike DNA backlog initiatives that were awarded primarily to state and local 

governments, other forensic science projects have been awarded to federal agencies 

(through interagency agreements), for-profit companies, nonprofit groups, as well as 

public and private universities. For more information on other forensic awards, please see 

appendix I.
Page 15 GAO-13-605 DOJ DNA Analysis Grants

We further analyzed grant and award description information across the 

initiatives that do not directly contribute to reducing the DNA backlog to 

determine whether they were DNA-related, and our analysis showed that 

more than $121 million of the approximately $212 million for other 

forensic science initiatives covered a range of DNA-related projects such 

as research, development, and evaluation to improve the ability to 

analyze aged or compromised DNA samples, DNA training for state and 

local laboratories, and DNA-related initiatives such as the National 

Missing and Unidentified Persons System. NIJ officials stated that the 

agency funded these projects because they provide valuable services 

and resources to practitioners solving crimes with DNA. For instance, 

DNA-related research can lead to faster and better methods for 

recovering and analyzing DNA. Also, NIJ officials stated that the agency’s 

mission includes facilitating faster and better DNA-related knowledge 

transfer across the country. As a result, several of its technical assistance 

initiatives covered a facet of NIJ’s commitment to training and information 

sharing. NIJ officials stated they consider these DNA-related initiatives to 

be a form of DNA capacity enhancement and an important part of the 

strategy to reduce the DNA backlog.

The remaining amount—approximately $90 million of the $212 million—

was awarded to support other areas of forensic science.21 This represents 

about 13 percent of the $691 million appropriated and includes efforts 

such as research, development, and evaluation of faster and less 

expensive methods to detect drugs or explosives at crime scenes and 

training for cell phone and other digital information forensic evidence. NIJ 

officials stated that NIJ has authority to support the criminal justice 

community in general forensic science endeavors, which is important 

because lab technicians must process many types of forensic evidence. 

NIJ officials added that cases may be solved through many different types 

of evidence and manners of processing, not just through DNA. They 

stated that faster and better analysis of other forensic evidence may help 

increase the amount of time lab technicians have to analyze DNA 

samples and indirectly benefit how many DNA cases can be completed.

 21The amounts associated with DNA-related initiatives that are not directly supporting 

state and local efforts to reduce the DNA backlog ($121 million) and forensic science 

initiatives that are not DNA related ($90 million) do not sum to $212 million in this report 

because of rounding.
Page 16 GAO-13-605 DOJ DNA Analysis Grants

NIJ has a process in place for determining its annual priorities for the 

allocation of DNA and forensic program appropriation funds; however, NIJ 

does not clearly document this process. According to NIJ officials, NIJ 

staff use the prior fiscal years’ funding as a starting point to make a 

proposed initial estimate of the amount to be allocated to the DNA 

Backlog Reduction Program. Specifically, NIJ staff examine the amount of 

funds remaining on active formula grant awards from prior fiscal years, 

and then use historical funding data to determine what is needed to fund 

eligible applicants for the next fiscal year. After the proposed initial 

allocation for the DNA Backlog Reduction Program has been determined, 

NIJ staff then develop an initial recommendation for how the estimated 

remaining funding will be allocated to other DNA and forensic initiatives. 

In addition, NIJ uses the professional expertise of its forensic staff, as well 

as input from NIJ-sponsored Technology Working Groups (TWG). These 

groups are committees of 25 to 30 experienced practitioners from local, 

state, tribal and federal agencies and laboratories associated with a 

particular NIJ technology investment portfolio, such as DNA Forensics or 

General Forensics, that help NIJ determine the criminal justice technology 

needs of the field.22 After NIJ staff arrive at proposed allocations among 

the initiatives, staff brief the Director of NIJ with documents—such as 

budget briefing slides or funding memos—that outline their priority areas. 

The NIJ Director then determines the initial allocation among the various 

initiatives.

NIJ next begins the process of implementing these initiatives through 

solicitations.23 According to NIJ officials, the solicitations are developed by 

NIJ staff possessing the relevant subject matter expertise, in consultation 

with Office of Investigative and Forensic Sciences leadership and with 

input from the forensic science TWGs. NIJ then posts each solicitation to 

the NIJ web site and either a federal government grant website or an OJP 

web-based system in order to accept proposals from qualified applicants 

 22According to NIJ officials, the DNA Forensics TWG provides input on DNA-related 

research and development and the General Forensics TWG provides input on forensic 

topics, such as crime scene investigations. There are a total of 20 TWGs. Although the 

TWGs provide input, according to NIJ officials, they are not tasked with or responsible for 

determining how to allocate funds.

23In addition to solicitations, NIJ implements initiatives through interagency agreements 

(for awards provided to federal agencies) and contracts (for agreements with various 

nongovernment entities).

NIJ Has a Process in

Place to Determine 

DNA and Forensic 

Program Funding 

Priorities, but 

Decisions Are Not 

Clearly Documented
Page 17 GAO-13-605 DOJ DNA Analysis Grants

applying for funding.24 Qualified proposals submitted in response to a 

competitive solicitation are subjected to a peer review process and 

evaluated for their scientific merit.25 Funding recommendations for 

individual proposals are, in part, informed by peer review and, in the case 

of forensics-related research proposals, the needs and priorities identified 

by the TWGs.

According to NIJ officials, the rationale for funding allocation decisions, 

such as the amount to be used for the DNA Backlog Reduction Program, 

is documented in the briefing slides and funding memos that are 

presented to the NIJ Director. However, according to our review, these 

documents do not consistently or adequately demonstrate NIJ’s rationale 

for how funding priorities are determined. Specifically, from fiscal years 

2008 through 2011, NIJ used budget briefing slides to present funding 

priorities to the NIJ Director. These briefing slides showed the various 

initiatives and the amount of funding NIJ proposed to allocate to each 

initiative, but they did not consistently provide justifications for how or why 

NIJ determined these amounts. For fiscal years 2008 and 2009, the 

briefing slides included rationale sections that were descriptions of the 

funding being allocated rather than justifications for why NIJ chose to 

allocate specific funding amounts to each initiative. For example, for fiscal 

year 2008, for the Forensic Technology Center of Excellence initiative, 

NIJ provided an itemized list of the funding request and projects in the 

rationale section. For fiscal year 2010, the budget briefing document 

outlined recommended changes to the DNA Backlog Reduction Program, 

such as adjusting minimum funding levels available to states and units of 

local government. However, the document did not include any rationale 

for this decision. For fiscal years 2012 and 2013, NIJ changed its process 

from using briefing slides to using funding memos to present funding 

prioritization decisions to the NIJ Director. While these memos show the 

final amounts NIJ decided to allocate to various initiatives, they do not 

 24The federal government grant website—Grants.gov—provides a unified electronic 

storefront for interactions between grant applicants and the federal agencies that 

administer grant funds. The Grants Management System (GMS) is OJP’s web-based, 

data-driven, computer application system that provides end-to-end support for the 

application, award, and management of grants. The electronic grant files contained within 

GMS are the official federal grant records of OJP.

25With the exception of a standing peer review panel process piloted in fiscal year 2012, 

NIJ uses OJP’s guidance—OJP Order, OJP Grant Application Peer Reviews—to conduct 

its peer review process.
Page 18 GAO-13-605 DOJ DNA Analysis Grants

provide details on the justifications for how funding levels were 

determined for each initiative. Further, although NIJ had a category for 

rationale in the fiscal year 2008 and 2009 briefing slides, this practice 

ended beginning with fiscal year 2010. According to NIJ officials, there 

was no longer a need to include a rationale in the briefing slides because 

the briefings to the NIJ Director began occurring later in the prioritization 

process and the Director’s signature, indicating approval of funding 

prioritization decisions, had already been obtained.

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that 

internal control and all transactions and other significant events need to 

be clearly documented, and the documentation should be readily 

available for examination. The documentation should appear in 

management directives, administrative policies, or operating manuals, 

and all documentation and records should be properly managed and 

maintained. The standards also state that transactions and significant 

events are to be clearly documented to help management with decision 

making and to help ensure operations are carried out as intended.26

According to NIJ officials, the budget briefing slides for fiscal years 2008 

through 2011 and the funding memos for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 are 

the only documents the agency uses to show its rationale for prioritization 

of the DNA and forensic program appropriation. Additionally, in light of 

budget uncertainty from year to year, NIJ officials believe their current 

process is the most useful because it allows the agency flexibility for 

making decisions. However, without a clearly documented process that 

demonstrates the rationale for how NIJ is prioritizing its DNA and forensic 

program appropriation, there is limited transparency regarding how and 

why the agency is allocating its funding. In addition, documenting the 

agency’s rationale for prioritizing funding—regardless of the timing of the 

briefing to the NIJ Director—would be worthwhile so that there is a record 

of the agency’s decision. Furthermore, the significant amount of funding 

NIJ administers under this appropriation, as well as the continuing 

demand for DNA analysis, highlights the importance of ensuring 

transparency when it comes to determining priorities for funding 

allocations.

 26 GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.
Page 19 GAO-13-605 DOJ DNA Analysis Grants

NIJ has processes in place to assess progress of the DNA Backlog 

Reduction Program, but does not have an approach to verify performance 

data submitted by grantees so as to reduce error rates. NIJ also has a 

performance measure to assess the results of this program, but data are 

lacking to determine whether efforts are having a measurable impact in 

reducing the DNA backlog.

NIJ assesses performance of the DNA Backlog Reduction Program by 

requiring grantees to submit reports every 6 months outlining their 

progress in, among other things, meeting the program goals and 

objectives established in their initial applications for funding. A key 

component of these progress reports is data on grant results—

performance data—that outline grantee progress such as in analyzing 

cases using NIJ funds. 27 NIJ program managers are responsible for 

reviewing performance measure data to assess progress in meeting 

grantee goals and objectives. NIJ also assesses grantee progress and 

performance by conducting monitoring activities that include, among other 

things, desk reviews and in-depth monitoring activities.28

While NIJ has developed performance measures for its grant programs 

and collects performance measurement data from its grantees, the 

agency does not have an approach to verify the reliability of the data—a 

process of checking or testing performance data to reduce the risk of 

using data that contain significant errors—and, as a result, faces 

continuing data errors. In October 2011, based on NIJ’s review of 

 27Grantees of NIJ’s DNA Backlog Reduction Program can use funding to analyze either 

DNA casework (from crime scenes) or DNA database samples (from convicted offenders 

or arrestee), or both.

28Desk reviews include a comprehensive review of materials available in the grant file to 

determine administrative, financial, and programmatic compliance, as well as grantee 

performance. In-depth monitoring consists of site visits or enhanced programmatic desk 

reviews (implemented in fiscal year 2011) which allow grant managers to pursue any 

issues identified during the desk review and assess the status of project implementation.

Verification of Data 

Reliability and 

Revision of Its 

Performance Measure 

Could Help NIJ Better 

Assess Performance 

of the DNA Backlog 

Reduction Program

NIJ Assesses Performance, 

but Verifying Performance 

Data Could Help NIJ 

Better Assess Results
Page 20 GAO-13-605 DOJ DNA Analysis Grants

progress reports, NIJ noted that, with respect to the DNA Backlog 

Reduction Program, 30 percent of progress reports submitted by grantees 

in 2011 had errors in the collection and reporting of data, contained 

inaccurate data, or lacked goals and updates on progress achieved. 

Furthermore, according to an NIJ review of site visits it conducted in 

2010, NIJ identified many issues with how data are collected and, many 

times, NIJ found data that were neither accurate nor auditable. In 

response to these concerns, in October 2011, NIJ provided grantees with 

additional guidance for preparing data collection plans and required them 

to explain any changes in data that they had previously submitted. NIJ 

also began requiring grantees to use an updated progress report form 

and provided an updated spreadsheet with pre-populated math formulas 

for reporting data on cases and samples analyzed to minimize data 

reporting errors. However, in March 2013, a year and a half after these 

actions, NIJ officials stated that they still estimate that 30 percent of 

progress reports submitted by grantees contain errors. NIJ officials noted 

that progress reports are sent back to grantees to correct mistakes, and 

the grantees are in turn required to send the reports back to NIJ for 

review and approval.

OJP requires that award recipients collect data that are appropriate for 

facilitating reporting requirements for GPRA, as amended, and that valid 

and auditable source documentation is available for such data.29 Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) guidance states that in order to assess 

progress toward achievement of performance goals, performance data 

must be appropriately accurate and reliable for intended use.30 OMB’s 

guidance further states that verification and validation31 of performance 

data support the general accuracy and reliability of performance 

information, reduces the risk of inaccurate performance data, and 

provides a sufficient level of confidence to Congress and the public that 

the information presented is credible as appropriate to its intended use. In 

addition, our work on performance assessment has identified that data 

verification helps to ensure that users can have confidence in the 

 29Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, 

2011 Financial Guide (Washington, D.C.: July 2012).

30Office of Management and Budget, Circular No. A-11: Preparation, Submission, and 

Execution of the Budget (Washington, D.C.: August 3, 2012).

31Validation is the assessment of whether data are appropriate for a performance 

measure. See GAO/GGD-99-139.
Page 21 GAO-13-605 DOJ DNA Analysis Grants

reported performance information because it provides a mechanism for 

assessing data completeness, accuracy, consistency, and timeliness, 

among other things.32

NIJ officials stated that they had not taken action to verify performance 

data because NIJ does not have access to original data to check that 

data are being reported correctly. As a result, officials stated that they 

primarily rely on grantees to submit reliable data. Officials also noted that 

they do not have the resources to systematically verify the reliability of 

data reported because, on average, each program manager is 

responsible for monitoring about 200 awards. Officials explained that as 

part of monitoring efforts—enhanced programmatic desk reviews, site 

visits, and review of progress reports—program managers will spot-check 

data for any anomalies and will follow up with grantees in cases where 

the data seem inaccurate.

Ensuring the reliability of the data is especially important in light of the 

fact that the DNA Backlog Reduction Program is NIJ’s largest investment. 

Furthermore, NIJ reports performance data in OJP’s annual Performance 

Budget to show progress in reducing the DNA backlog.33 Without an 

approach to verify grantee-reported data, NIJ cannot provide assurance 

that grantees have valid and auditable source documentation for the data 

they report, as required by OJP. In addition, NIJ officials are not required 

to verify performance data when reviewing progress reports. NIJ 

estimated that 30 percent of progress reports were sent back to grantees 

for correction because they contained errors. However, because program 

managers are not required to verify performance data, NIJ cannot be 

certain that the remaining 70 percent of progress reports were free of 

data errors. As a result, NIJ cannot provide a sufficient level of confidence 

to Congress and the public that performance data associated with the 

DNA Backlog Reduction Program are reliable enough to show that the 

program is successfully meeting its goals or reducing the DNA backlog. 

As part of its site visit monitoring efforts, during which time NIJ officials 

 32GAO/GGD-99-139. We conducted work in six agencies and identified examples 

illustrating a wide range of approaches for increasing the quality, validity, and credibility of 

performance information. 

33Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, FY 2014 Performance Budget, March 

2013.
Page 22 GAO-13-605 DOJ DNA Analysis Grants

have access to grantees’ original source data, NIJ could, for example, 

assess whether additional edit checks are needed to better ensure data 

are reliable. Although there could be a cost associated with such efforts, 

defining a cost-effective approach to verify its performance measurement 

data would better position NIJ to help ensure that it is providing quality 

information to the public, internal agency officials, and congressional 

decision makers who play a role in determining where to allocate NIJ 

funding resources.

We also found that the performance measure NIJ uses to measure 

results of the DNA Backlog Reduction Program may yield an incomplete 

picture. The performance measure, reported as “percent of reduction in 

DNA backlog casework,” is a projection of DNA casework that grantees 

expect to complete as opposed to an actual tabulation of completed 

cases. Using data submitted by grantees, NIJ calculates the number of 

cases grantees expect to test with future funding, divided by the DNA 

casework backlog reported by grantees at the end of the calendar year. In 

fiscal year 2011, for example, the reported percent reduction was 32.9 

percent and was based on a calculation of the estimated number of cases 

grantees expected to be completed, divided by the total DNA casework 

backlog. Grantees submit their estimated number of cases to NIJ in their 

funding applications before they are awarded the grants and begin work. 

Further, these grantees have up to 3 years to complete their work.

NIJ officials explained that reducing the DNA backlog is a DOJ goal in 

support of GPRA and the agency reports this measure in OJP’s annual 

Performance Budget. According to officials, the DNA Backlog Reduction 

Program is NIJ’s program with the most immediate impact in reducing the 

DNA backlog. However, NIJ’s performance measure does not 

demonstrate actual results, as required by GPRA, as amended.34

In addition, NIJ has established a target of 25 percent reduction in DNA 

backlog casework, which NIJ officials stated that they establish based on 

historical knowledge. However, NIJ’s target is also a projection of the 

DNA casework that grantees expect to achieve based on estimates 

submitted in grantee applications. 

 34See 31 U.S.C. § 1115.

NIJ’s Performance 

Measure Includes 

Estimated, but Not Actual 

Outcomes of the DNA 

Backlog Reduction 

Program
Page 23 GAO-13-605 DOJ DNA Analysis Grants

Our prior work on GPRA states that agencies that were successful in 

measuring performance strived to establish performance measures that, 

among other things, enable an organization to assess accomplishments, 

make decisions, realign processes, assign accountability, and 

demonstrate results so as to tell each organizational level how well it is 

achieving its goals.35 In addition, in our work assessing performance 

measures, we identified that performance measures should provide 

useful information for decision making by providing managers and other 

stakeholders timely, action-oriented information in a format that helps 

them make decisions that improve program performance.36 Measures that 

do not provide managers with useful information will not alert managers 

and other stakeholders to the existence of problems or help them respond 

when problems arise.

According to NIJ officials, the agency is unable to develop a performance 

measure that reports actual cases completed (on the fiscal year basis 

called for in OJP’s annual budget submission) under the DNA Backlog 

Reduction Program because grantees have up to 3 years to complete 

their work and the completed number of cases for the entire grant period 

is not known until the grant period closes. In addition, NIJ officials 

explained that they would prefer a more meaningful measure, but the 

current measure captures NIJ’s best guess of the percentage reduction in 

DNA backlog casework.

While measuring annual performance for multi-year grants can be 

challenging, NIJ could take steps to better assess the results of DNA 

backlog efforts by analyzing performance data on actual cases 

completed, which the agency already collects from grantees every 6 

months as part of the grantees’ progress reports. In fact, for grants that 

have not yet closed, NIJ has already started analyzing actual 

performance data to identify grantees’ annual progress in meeting goals. 

 35GAO/GGD-96-118.

36GAO, Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Further Refine Its Tax Filing Season 

Performance Measures, GAO-03-143 (Washington, D.C.: November 22, 2002). According 

to attributes of performance measures from various sources, such as earlier GAO work, 

Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-11, and GPRA, among other sources, 

we identified that in order to track how programs and activities can contribute to attaining 

goals and missions, organizations need to have performance measures that (1) 

demonstrate results, (2) are limited to the vital few, (3) cover multiple program priorities, 

and (4) provide useful information for decision making. 
Page 24 GAO-13-605 DOJ DNA Analysis Grants

Such data, once sufficiently reliable, could help NIJ to better assess 

actual results and develop a more accurate performance measure. 

Officials from OJP’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer—the office 

responsible for reporting performance measure information—stated that 

in order to modify a measure, NIJ would need to propose the change and 

OJP would submit the proposed revised measure, with approval of other 

components of DOJ, to OMB in the OJP annual budget submission.

By revising its performance measure to include casework actually 

completed, NIJ will be better situated to provide decision makers with 

timely, action-oriented information that helps them make decisions that 

improve program performance or that alerts them to the existence of 

problems so they can respond to them when they arise.

As reported by DOJ, federal funds to address the persisting backlogs of 

untested DNA samples, among other things, have provided needed 

support to state and local laboratories to help resolve criminal cases. 

However, DOJ could take additional steps to improve transparency and 

better assess results. While NIJ has a process to determine funding 

priorities, documenting the agency’s rationale for funding allocation 

decisions, as recommended by standards for internal control in the 

federal government, NIJ could enhance transparency of the agency’s 

funding priorities. DOJ has a process in place, as well as a performance 

measure, to assess results of NIJ’s DNA Backlog Reduction Program, but 

the agency could verify data and use actual outcomes, as required by 

federal requirements, to attain reasonable assurance that funds are 

having a measureable impact in reducing DNA backlogs.

We recommend that the Director of NIJ take the following three actions.

In order to provide stakeholders and Congress greater transparency 

regarding its funding allocations, we recommend that the Director of NIJ 

document the rationale for its annual funding priorities.

In order to assist Congress and NIJ management and stakeholders to 

better assess whether NIJ’s DNA Backlog Reduction Program is having a 

measurable impact in reducing the DNA backlog, we recommend that the 

Director of NIJ take the following two actions:

• develop a cost-effective approach to verify performance data 

submitted by grantees to provide reasonable assurance that such 

Conclusions

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
Page 25 GAO-13-605 DOJ DNA Analysis Grants

data are sufficiently reliable to report progress in reducing the DNA 

backlog, and,

• revise the “percent of reduction in DNA backlog casework”

performance measure to include casework actually completed as part 

of the measure instead of casework that is projected.

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

provided written comments, which are reproduced in full in appendix II, 

and technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. DOJ 

agreed with all three of the recommendations and outlined steps to 

address them. 

With respect to the first recommendation, OJP stated that in fiscal year 

2014, the Director of NIJ will begin documenting the rationale for the

estimated initial allocation of funds appropriated (or anticipated to be 

appropriated) for DNA analysis and capacity enhancement program 

efforts, and for other local, state, and federal forensic activities. 

Regarding the second recommendation, OJP stated that once NIJ revises 

the performance measure for the NIJ DNA Backlog Reduction Program 

(in response to our third recommendation), NIJ will begin developing a 

cost-effective approach to provide reasonable assurance that data 

collected from grantees, in support of the new or revised performance 

measure, are sufficiently reliable to report program progress. 

Finally, for the third recommendation, OJP stated that the Director of NIJ 

will undertake efforts to revise the performance measure for the NIJ DNA 

Backlog Reduction Program and anticipates that the new or revised 

performance measure will reflect actual cases competed. OJP also noted 

that the new or revised performance measure will be subject to review 

and/or approval of other DOJ components as the well as the 

Administration.

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

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

report is available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov.

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 26 GAO-13-605 DOJ DNA Analysis Grants

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

me at (202) 512-4841, mackinm@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.

Michele Mackin

Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management
Page 27 GAO-13-605 DOJ DNA Analysis Grants

List of Committees

The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski

Chairwoman

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Richard C. Shelby

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Frank R. Wolf

Chairman

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

The Honorable Chaka Fattah

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Recipients of Awards Made by the 

National Institute of Justice for the DNA and 

Forensic Program, Fiscal Years 2008 through 

2012

Page 28 GAO-13-605 DOJ DNA Analysis Grants

The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) National Institute of Justice (NIJ) was 

appropriated about $691 million from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 for 

the DNA and forensic program, which is administered by its National

Institute of Justice (NIJ).

1 NIJ awarded almost two-thirds of all funds—or 

about 63 percent—to either state or local units of government from the 

DNA and forensic program appropriation for fiscal years 2008 through 

2012, as seen in figure 4.

Figure 4: Recipients of Grants and Other Awards Funded through the DNA and Forensic Program Appropriation, Fiscal Years 

2008-2012

Note: Totals are rounded to the nearest $0.1 million, including the total appropriation. Totals do not 

equal to $691 million because of rounding. “Other” includes expenditures for management and 

administration assessments, and adjustments, transfers, or carryovers. 

Of the about $691 million, about $442 million, or 64 percent, went to 

directly benefit state and local units of government to reduce the DNA 

backlog. Of the $442 million, about 96 percent, or about $422 million, was 

allocated directly to either state or local units of government through NIJ’s 

DNA backlog initiatives, including NIJ’s DNA Backlog Reduction Program. 

 1

In making appropriations to the Department of Justice for “DNA-related and forensic 

programs and activities,” Congress has specified the amounts to be obligated for specific 

programs and activities. For example, DOJ has been directed to use a large portion of the 

funds for “a DNA analysis and capacity enhancement program and for other local, State, 

and Federal forensic activities, including the purposes authorized under section 2 of the 

DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant 

Program).” We refer to efforts funded by these latter funds as the DNA and forensic 

program.

Appendix I: Recipients of Awards Made by the 

National Institute of Justice for the DNA and 

Forensic Program, Fiscal Years 2008 through 2012
Appendix I: Recipients of Awards Made by the 

National Institute of Justice for the DNA and 

Forensic Program, Fiscal Years 2008 through 

2012

Page 29 GAO-13-605 DOJ DNA Analysis Grants

Three percent—or about $14 million—was awarded to public universities 

to conduct DNA analyses and increase lab capacity on behalf of state and 

local governments, and an additional 1 percent—about $6 million—was 

awarded to for-profit businesses to conduct similar analyses for certain 

populations of DNA samples.

Approximately $212 million of $691 million was awarded to various 

entities for purposes that do not directly support state and local 

governments’ efforts to reduce the DNA backlog, but for which there may 

be an indirect benefit to the reduction of DNA backlogs.2 For example, of 

the $212 million, public colleges and universities received about $63 

million for initiatives that do not directly benefit state and local government 

efforts to reduce DNA backlogs. See table 3.

Table 3: Recipients of NIJ DNA and Forensic Program Appropriation, Fiscal Years 2008-2012

Recipient of Funds

Directly benefiting state and local 

DNA backlog efforts

Not directly benefiting state and 

local DNA backlog efforts Recipient Totals 

State units of government $257,979,499 $2,145,645 $260,125,144 

Local units of government 164,096,921 11,237,848 175,334,769

Public colleges and universities 13,715,861 62,603,059 76,318,920 

Nonprofit organizations — 57,400,607 57,400,607 

For-profit Businesses 5,858,676 37,426,044 43,284,721 

Other federal agencies — 28,488,746 28,488,746

Private colleges and universities — 12,270,010 12,270,010 

Management and administration 

assessed by OJP — — 26,538,740

Adjustments, transfers, or carryover — — 11,707,855

Total $441,650,957 $211,571,960 $691,469,511

Source: GAO analysis of NIJ grants, awards, and other appropriation information.

Note: Amounts for management and administration assessments and adjustments, transfers, or 

carryover represent other funds that were not awarded through an NIJ initiative. Therefore, these 

amounts did not specifically address DNA backlog or other forensic science efforts. Amounts for 

categories do not equal totals because of rounding to the nearest dollar.

 2

Such purposes included initiatives such as research, development, and evaluation, and 

forensic science training, among others. The remaining $38 million of the $691 million 

appropriated went to management and administration of OJP-wide activities; was 

transferred pursuant to statute to other research and statistics accounts; or went to 

adjustments, such as a statutory rescission of prior-year unobligated balances. For 

specific amounts allocated to management and administration of OJP-wide activities and 

adjustments, transfers, or carryover, see table 3.
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Justice

Page 30 GAO-13-605 DOJ DNA Analysis Grants

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Justice
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Justice

Page 31 GAO-13-605 DOJ DNA Analysis Grants
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Justice

Page 32 GAO-13-605 DOJ DNA Analysis Grants
Appendix III: GAO Contact Staff and 

Acknowledgments

Page 33 GAO-13-605 DOJ DNA Analysis Grants

Michele Mackin, (202) 512-4841, or mackinm@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Dawn Locke (Assistant Director), 

Joel Aldape, Brian Lipman, and Jeremy Manion made significant 

contributions to the work. Also contributing to the report were Michele

Fejfar, Grant Mallie, Jessica Orr, and Janet Temko.

Appendix III: GAO Contact Staff and 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(441083)
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.