Victims of Child Abuse Act: Further Actions Needed to Ensure Timely Use of Grant Funds and Assess Grantee Performance
Published: 2015-04-29T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Department of Justice's (DOJ) OJJDP, housed within the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), awarded about $74 million in VOCA grants from fiscal years 2010 through 2013. VOCA grants are designed to help improve the investigation and prosecution of child abuse cases. Senate Report 113-78 included a provision for GAO to conduct a review related to the administration of OJJDP grant programs.
This report addresses the extent to which OJJDP (1) ensures the timely expenditure of VOCA grants and (2) assesses the performance of VOCA grantees. GAO analyzed OJJDP documentation—such as program guidelines, grantee progress reports, and expenditure data—from fiscal years 2010 through 2013. Additionally, GAO interviewed DOJ officials and the universe of VOCA grantees about their experiences with the program.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: For the 28 Victims of Child Abuse Act (VOCA) grants the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) awarded from fiscal years 2010 through 2013, grantees expended less than 20 percent, on average, of each grant they received during the original 12-month project period. OJJDP has several administrative review and approval processes in place that have contributed to delays in grantees' ability to begin spending their funds. For instance, grantees cannot access their funds until OJJDP completes its internal review of grantees' budgets, a step that has taken more than 2 months, on average, after the project period began. Further, OJJDP's guidance on grant extensions is unclear and irregularly enforced. For example, one document states that generally only one extension per award is permissible, while another states that multiple extensions may be granted for up to a total of 5 years. OJJDP guidance further requires grantees to submit a narrative justification with their requests. However, OJJDP approved 72 of 73 extension requests from fiscal years 2010 through 2013 without such justification. Examining the delays associated with its administrative review processes and clarifying and enforcing the extension policy for VOCA grants would help OJJDP ensure the effective administration and timely use of grant funds.
a The Assistant Attorney General for OJP is responsible for officially notifying applicants that they have received an award.
OJJDP does not have complete data to assess VOCA grantees' performance against the measures it has established. Specifically, OJJDP establishes performance measures in the VOCA grant solicitations and requires grantees to submit data on these measures. However, the performance measures it has established for the VOCA grant program do not fully align with the tools it has created to collect data for all OJJDP grants. Further, five of the six VOCA grantees reported that they have not received guidance on which measures to include in their required reports. Accordingly, grantees did not consistently report on the established performance measures as required. Better aligning the established VOCA performance measures with existing data collection tools and clarifying grantee reporting requirements would better ensure OJJDP has the data it needs to assess the effectiveness of the VOCA grant programs.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: To ensure the effective administration of VOCA grant funds, GAO recommends, among other things, that OJP work with OJJDP to examine and address its administrative review processes to reduce delays in VOCA spending, establish and enforce a clear grant extension policy, and better align the VOCA performance measures with available data collection tools while also clarifying grantee reporting requirements. OJP concurred with our recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: From fiscal years 2010 through 2013, the Department of Justice’s (DOJ)  Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) awarded  about $74 million in grants for programs established in response to the  Victims of Child Abuse Act (VOCA), through five distinct solicitations.  These VOCA grant programs are among the more than 40 discretionary  grant programs that OJJDP administers. The VOCA programs are  designed to help improve the investigation and prosecution of child abuse  cases, largely by providing funding, training, and technical assistance to  Children’s Advocacy Centers (CAC) throughout the nation. CACs are  child-friendly facilities in which law enforcement, child protection,  prosecution, mental health, medical, and victim advocacy professionals  work together to investigate abuse, help children heal from abuse, and  hold offenders accountable. In 2014, there were 777 CACs nationwide  that collectively served about 322,000 child victims of physical and sexual  abuse. OJJDP has traditionally awarded the VOCA grants to large  national and regional nonprofit organizations, which are charged with  providing training and technical assistance to local CACs and state  chapters—organizing bodies for CACs within states.
The Senate committee report accompanying the Departments of  Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies’ Appropriations Bill,  2014, included a provision for GAO to conduct a review related to the  administration of OJJDP grant programs. In response to this provision,  we reviewed the extent to which OJJDP   1.  ensures the timely expenditure of VOCA grant funding, and  2.  assesses the performance of VOCA grantees.
The Senate committee report also included a provision for GAO to  address grant recipients’ use of grant funds for executive compensation.  We have included information on DOJ’s executive compensation policies  in appendix I. To prepare this appendix, we evaluated VOCA grant  recipients’ compliance with DOJ’s policy by analyzing their budgeted  salary expenditures from fiscal years 2010 through 2013.
To assess the extent to which OJJDP ensures the timely expenditure of  VOCA grant funding, we analyzed DOJ documentation—such as the  Office of Justice Programs (OJP) Financial Guide, VOCA grant  solicitations, and award letters—to determine what requirements govern  the expenditure of VOCA grant funds. OJJDP awarded 28 new or  continuing VOCA grants and 3 supplemental VOCA grants from fiscal  years 2010 through 2013, the 4 most recently completed grant years. We  did not review fiscal year 2014 VOCA grant awards because these grants  are not scheduled to close until September 30, 2015. We analyzed VOCA  expenditure data for these 31 VOCA grants in comparison with the stated  requirements. We evaluated expenditures for these grants through  September 30, 2014, the original end date of the fiscal year 2013 grants.  We assessed the reliability of the expenditure data by interviewing  officials responsible for maintaining the data and by conducting manual  testing, and determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our  purposes. We also analyzed the amount of time it took VOCA grantees to  satisfy necessary DOJ administrative requirements in order to begin  expending grant funds. For this analysis, we excluded the three  supplemental awards because these awards did not have unique project  start dates. Finally, we analyzed documentation on grant extensions  awarded to VOCA grantees, and compared these granted extensions  against the guidelines outlined in the OJP Financial Guide and the OJP  Grant Manager’s Manual. We also conducted interviews with all six  VOCA grant recipients; with officials from OJP’s Offices of the Chief  Financial Officer and Audit, Assessment, and Management, and with  OJJDP officials responsible for managing the VOCA grant programs to  determine what challenges, if any, VOCA grantees face in expending  their grant awards in a timely manner.
To determine the extent to which OJJDP assesses the performance of  VOCA grantees, we first reviewed the fiscal year 2012 VOCA grant  solicitations to identify the performance measures that OJJDP established  for each of the 5 VOCA grant programs in our review. We then analyzed  the submission of performance data from all fiscal year 2012 VOCA grant  recipients through their semiannual progress reports and compared this  information with the performance measures contained in the VOCA grant  solicitations. We also interviewed the OJJDP Performance Measures  Planning Coordinator and the VOCA grant programs manager to  determine how these officials use performance data to evaluate grantee  performance. Finally, we interviewed all VOCA grantees to ascertain their  experiences with reporting performance data on their grant awards.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2014 to April 2015 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Children’s Advocacy Center Network
paragraphs: The Children’s Advocacy Center model was developed in the 1980s to  improve the response to child abuse. CACs are designed to coordinate a  multidisciplinary response to child abuse and reduce the additional stress  on child abuse victims and families created by the investigation process.  CACs provide a centralized child-friendly environment in which children  and families receive services and support from multiple professionals  (e.g., law enforcement officers, child protective services investigators,  prosecutors, and mental health and medical providers). Nationwide, 777  CACs were operating in all 50 states and the District of Columbia as of  2014. As shown in figure 1, these local CACs receive support from the  following larger organizations within the national CAC network:
National Children’s Alliance (NCA)—NCA is a not-for-profit  membership organization for CACs whose mission is to promote and  support communities in providing a coordinated investigation and  comprehensive response to child victims of abuse. NCA is the  accrediting body for CACs and state chapters. NCA sets national  standards for CACs and provides training, technical assistance,  funding, and other support to state chapters and local CACs.
Regional CACs—In 1992, amendments to VOCA established the  Regional CAC Program—with one regional CAC in each of the four  U.S. Census regions. The regional CACs provide training, technical  assistance, and other support to state chapters and local CACs. The  regional CACs and NCA work collaboratively to develop and improve  CACs across the country. Each regional CAC is hosted by a local  CAC. The current hosts are the Philadelphia Children’s Alliance  (Northeast Regional CAC), the National Children’s Advocacy Center  (Southern Regional CAC), CAC of the Pikes Peak Region (Western  Regional CAC), and Children’s Health Care (Midwest Regional CAC),  although the hosts have changed since the program began in 1995.
State chapters—Forty-nine states have chapters that are accredited  by NCA. State chapters assess child abuse trends and victims’ needs  within their state. They work with the regional CACs and NCA to  provide training and technical assistance that meets the specific  needs of CACs within their state. Both the regional CACs and NCA  pass through part of their VOCA grant awards to state chapters.
section_title: Overview of VOCA Grant Programs and Grantees
paragraphs: From fiscal years 2010 through 2013, OJJDP awarded about $74 million  in funding under the following five VOCA grant programs established in  response to the Victims of Child Abuse Act. Annual funding ranged from  about $23 million in fiscal year 2010 to about $16 million in fiscal year  2013 (see app. II for annual funding awarded under each program).
Children’s Advocacy Center Subgrant Program—The largest of  the VOCA grant programs, the CAC Subgrant Program funds a  national grant program designed to support CACs nationwide. Since  the program’s inception, OJJDP has exclusively awarded this grant to  NCA. The average annual award amount from fiscal years 2010  through 2013 was $10.6 million. NCA largely passes this funding  through to the 49 state CAC chapters. The funding amount differs by  state, but on average, NCA provided each state chapter with an  annual award of $177,000 from fiscal years 2010 through 2013. The  state chapters use some of this funding to support basic operational  expenses, and they also further pass through the funds to local CACs.  NCA also makes a selected number of awards directly to local CACs.
Regional CAC Program—This program supports the four regional  CACs, which are exclusively funded through the VOCA grant. From  fiscal years 2010 through 2013, OJJDP awarded an average of $1.2  million annually to each regional CAC. The regional CACs use this  funding to provide training and technical assistance to existing and  developing CACs and state chapters. Each of the regional CACs  subawards a portion of its grant funds. From fiscal years 2010 through  2013, the regional CACs subawarded an average of 13 percent of  their VOCA grants each year. Primarily, these subawards took the  form of annual chapter support grants to the state CAC chapters.  These subawards averaged about $7,000, and were often designated  for specific expenses related to training and technical assistance.
CAC Membership and Accreditation Program—Also awarded  exclusively to NCA, this program provides funding to support NCA’s  role as a national membership and accreditation organization for  CACs and to enable the development and implementation of  accreditation standards. The average annual award amount from  fiscal years 2010 through 2013 was $886,000.
Training and Technical Assistance for Child Abuse  Prosecutors—Awarded exclusively to the National District Attorneys  Association, this program funds a national training and technical  assistance program to enhance the effectiveness of attorneys and  others who investigate and prosecute child abuse cases. From fiscal  years 2010 through 2012, OJJDP awarded an annual average of $1.5  million to the National District Attorneys Association. OJJDP did not  make an award under this program in fiscal year 2013.
Training and Technical Assistance for Child Abuse  Professionals—Awarded exclusively to the National Children’s  Advocacy Center, this program provides funding for the development  and implementation of training and technical assistance for child  abuse professionals in order to improve the judicial system’s handling  of child abuse and neglect cases and the coordinated multidisciplinary  investigation of and response to child abuse. From fiscal years 2010  through 2013, OJJDP awarded an annual average of $800,000 to the  National Children’s Advocacy Center for this program.
section_title: Overview of VOCA Grant Cycle
paragraphs: OJJDP releases VOCA grant solicitations and interested parties  apply—OJJDP awards funding under each of the five VOCA  programs through a competitive application process. OJJDP outlines  the application process in an annual grant solicitation—the formal  announcement of a new funding opportunity and a call for  applications. The solicitation also provides applicants with key  information about the grant program, such as eligibility requirements,  allowable costs, and performance measures. Although VOCA grants  are awarded annually, applicants only compete for funding every 3  years. Successful applicants are awarded 12 months’ worth of funding  during the initial competition year, and are then invited to apply for two  additional 12-month grants under continuation solicitations. The  Regional CAC Program solicitation was last competed in fiscal year  2013, and the other four solicitations were last competed in fiscal year  2012. In the past, there has been limited competition for these grant  programs.
OJJDP uses a peer review process to evaluate applications— OJJDP uses a peer review process to evaluate applications when  more than one qualified grant application is submitted. The peer  review panel consists of three or more program-area experts (internal  or external to DOJ) who review and score applications based on the  criteria outlined in the grant solicitation. The peer reviewers’  evaluations are reviewed by the grant manager, who then writes a  funding recommendation memo. The peer review process serves an  advisory function, as DOJ retains the final decision regarding funding.  According to OJJDP officials, in noncompete years, this peer review  process is not used, since only existing grantees are eligible for  continuation funding. Instead, applications are reviewed by a program  manager and OJP’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) to  ensure solicitation requirements are met and that the grantee is in  good financial standing.
OCFO must approve grantee budgets—Once DOJ has selected the  applicants to receive funding, OCFO must review and approve the  proposed project budgets that grantees submit with their application  packets before the grantees can begin expending their funds. In  consultation with OJJDP, OCFO reviews the budget to ensure that  project costs are accurately explained, and to determine whether  costs are reasonable, necessary, and allowable under applicable  federal cost principles, agency regulations, and solicitation guidelines.
Grantees must comply with several reporting requirements— During the grant performance period, OCFO and OJJDP are  responsible for financial and programmatic monitoring of VOCA  grantees. To accomplish this oversight, and in accordance with Office  of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance, grantees must submit  the following periodic reports:
Federal financial reports—Filed quarterly, these reports provide  information on grant funds expended and remaining.
Semi-annual progress reports—Filed semiannually, the  progress reports include both narrative information and  quantitative performance measures.
Narrative progress reports—VOCA grantees must submit a  narrative progress report that outlines the grant activities  completed during the reporting period.
Data Collection and Technical Assistance Tool (DCTAT)—In  conjunction with the narrative progress reports, VOCA grantees  are to electronically input quantitative performance data using  OJJDP’s DCTAT, a standardized reporting tool that all OJJDP  grantees use.
Grantees must expend funds within the project period or obtain a  no-cost grant extension—VOCA grantees have a 12-month project  period in which to expend their grant funds. If grant funds remain  unexpended at the end of the project period, they are returned to  OJJDP unless OJJDP provides the grantee with a no-cost grant  extension.
section_title: OJJDP Processes Do Not Provide Reasonable Assurance That VOCA Grant Funding Is Being Expended in a Timely Manner
subsections: section_title: OJJDP’s Administrative Processes Contribute to Delays in Grantees’ Expenditure of VOCA Funds; Current Project Period May Be Unrealistic
paragraphs: OJJDP has several administrative review and approval processes in  place that have contributed to delays in VOCA grantees’ ability to begin  spending their funds, and OJJDP may have set an unrealistic project  period in light of the time it takes to complete these processes. We found  that none of the VOCA awards included in our review was fully expended  at the end of the original 12-month project period. Specifically, for the 28  VOCA awards included in our review, we found that grantees had  expended an average of 18.4 percent of their award by the end of their  original 12-month project period.
We identified several grant requirements and related administrative  processes that delayed when VOCA grantees were able to begin  expending their grant funds. Specifically, as shown in figure 2, we  identified three main sources of delay for VOCA grants that OJJDP  awarded from fiscal years 2010 through 2013: (1) project period start date  and award notification, (2) budget approval, and (3) conference cost  approval.
Project period start date and award notification—As shown in  figure 2, OJJDP notified grantees that they had been selected to  receive VOCA awards—and officially obligated the federal funds—33  days, on average, after the start of the project period for VOCA grants  OJJDP awarded from fiscal years 2010 through 2013. However, we  identified variation in the average length of time between the project  period start date and the award notification date across the grant  years we reviewed. Specifically, for fiscal years 2010 through 2012,  the project period start date was August 1, and OJJDP notified  grantees of their award an average of 41 days after the project period  start date. OJJDP does not obligate award funds to grantees until  OJJDP makes this award notification, and accordingly, VOCA  grantees in these years were, on average, unable to expend grant  funds for more than a month out of their 12-month project period.  Beginning in fiscal year 2013, OJP changed the project period start  date for all of its awards from August 1 to October 1. As in prior  years, OJJDP notified selected VOCA grantees of their award in late  August or in September, but this notification now took place an  average of 14 days before the project period start date. OJJDP  retained the October 1 project period start date for fiscal year 2014  VOCA awards. OJJDP officials stated that notifying grantees before  the project period start date—as was done in fiscal years 2013 and  2014—is ideal because it maximizes the amount of time within the 12- month project period when grantees have access to their awarded  grant funds.
Budget approval—Before VOCA grantees can begin expending their  grant funds, they must also wait until OCFO has reviewed and given  final approval to the project budget that they submitted with their  application packets. This budget review process took 39 days from  the date award notification was made, or 72 days from the project  period start date, on average, for fiscal years 2010 through 2013.  OCFO officials told us that they strive to complete this budget review  before OJJDP notifies applicants that they will receive an award, but  that this rarely happens because of the timing of the congressional  appropriations process and other relevant procedural factors, such as  when the solicitation is posted, the duration of the peer review  process, and the total volume of budgets that OCFO has to review  across the universe of OJJDP grant programs. After the program  office reviews the applications internally to ensure that the budgets  align with the programmatic goals of the VOCA program, OJJDP  passes the budgets on to OCFO, which reviews the budgets to ensure  compliance with federal financial regulations. OCFO officials can  begin their preliminary budget review upon receipt of the budgets from  the program office, but they cannot finalize their budget review  process until DOJ receives its annual appropriation—the timing of  which varies by year—and OJJDP finalizes available award amounts  based on this appropriation. Once OJJDP notifies grantees of their  award amounts, and OCFO provides final budget clearance, grantees  are able to begin expending their grant funds.
As with the award notification process, we identified year-to-year  variation in the length of the budget review process. For example,  budget approval took 11 days for fiscal year 2011 VOCA awards and  71 days for fiscal year 2012 VOCA awards, on average, from the  award notification date. The OCFO officials we spoke with could not  explain the specific reasons for this variation, but noted that,  generally, OCFO’s ability to approve grantees’ budgets in a timely  manner depends, in part, on the volume of grantee budgets OCFO is  reviewing at any given time.
Conference cost approval—DOJ requires, in accordance with OMB  guidance, that grantees obtain pre-approval before incurring  conference expenses. Through its OJP Financial Guide, OJP  broadly defines conferences to include meetings, retreats, seminars,  symposia, events, and group training activities. OJP officials stated  that DOJ established this preapproval requirement in October 2011  following a September 2011 DOJ Office of the Inspector General audit  that found that some DOJ components had not minimized conference  costs as required by federal and DOJ guidance.
When the conference cost requirement was first implemented, in  October 2011, OJJDP officials stated that review and approval of  conference cost requests took as long as 5 to 6 months. However,  DOJ has subsequently made changes to reduce the amount of time it  takes to review and approve conference cost requests. For example,  according to OJP officials, DOJ released an official policy in July 2012  outlining the requirements for conference cost approval submissions  and also instituted a more streamlined approval process for requests  under $100,000. Additionally, OJP officials noted that OCFO  developed improved software solutions and provided grantees the  opportunity to submit blanket requests for approval of multiple events  that are similar in nature and scope. OJP officials stated that approval  now generally takes about 2 to 3 months, and a VOCA grantee stated  that the process has improved since the requirement was first  implemented.
While these improvements have reduced the conference cost review  and approval time, OJJDP officials acknowledge that the conference  cost approval submission requirement has hindered grantees’ ability  to expend grant funds within the allotted 12-month project period, and  VOCA grantees confirmed this. Specifically, DOJ requires grantees to  submit planned expenses associated with training and conferences  for preapproval at least 90 days before the event is to take place.  Further, OJJDP officials stated that in order for a grantee to have  enough time to finalize the event logistics, notify attendees, and make  other necessary arrangements following DOJ approval of the  grantee’s request, the grantee really needs to submit its conference  cost approval request about 6 months before the event is to take  place. This would provide the grantee with about 3 months to finalize  the event once DOJ had approved the request. VOCA grantees  cannot submit these conference cost approval requests to DOJ until  OCFO has approved their grant project budgets—a process that has  taken more than 2 months, on average, from the project period start  date, as discussed above. Accordingly, one VOCA grantee reported  being unable to conduct training and conference activities for the first  6 to 7 months of the grant’s 12-month project period. VOCA grantees  reported that complying with the preapproval requirement has  hindered their ability to expend grant funds because they are not able  to hold any conference or training events—a key purpose of their  grants—during the initial months of their grant project period while  they are awaiting pre-approval. One VOCA grantee reported having to  cancel a planned training event because DOJ did not approve the  request in time, another grantee stated that the conference cost  approval process creates a lot of work for both the grantee and DOJ  and makes it more difficult to expend grant funds, while another  grantee stated that the process hinders its ability to provide training  and technical assistance, which are key grant program goals and  objectives.
Despite efforts to reduce these sources of delay, the administrative  requirements described above continue to contribute to challenges in  VOCA grantees’ ability to fully expend their grant awards within the  original 12-month project period that OJJDP has established in the VOCA  grant solicitations. Grantees also commit to fully expending their funds in  12 months when outlining their budget and project plans in their grant  applications. However, because we found that VOCA grant activities are  not being completed within the time parameters OJJDP established for  the grant program, this may affect the ability of grantees to complete their  grant goals and objectives. The OJP Grant Manager’s Manual states that  program managers are responsible for setting a realistic project period  that accounts for the true length of projects to ensure that the grantee has  the full project period to complete activities and draw down funds, thereby  minimizing the need for no-cost extensions. According to OJP officials,  the selection of the VOCA grants’ project period length is an OJJDP  policy decision. OJJDP officials stated that they have always had a 12- month project period in place for VOCA awards because funding for  VOCA is appropriated on an annual basis and OJJDP expects the grant  award to cover 12 months of expenses. However, in the event that  OJJDP is unable to further expedite the administrative review and  approval processes discussed above, it would benefit from reexamining  whether 12 months is an appropriate project period length to ensure that  VOCA grantees are well positioned to fully expend their grant funds. Such  an assessment would help ensure that the project period length is  realistic in light of the irrevocable administrative delays.
section_title: OJJDP’s Guidance on Extensions Is Irregularly Enforced and Inconsistent
paragraphs: OJJDP routinely approved VOCA grantees’ requests for no-cost grant  extensions, but often did so without adhering to extension approval  guidelines, which we found to be inconsistent. By the end of fiscal year  2014, 15 of the 28 VOCA awards we included in our review had been fully  expended. Among these 15 VOCA awards, OJJDP approved an average  of 3 extensions per award, which extended the award for a total of 18  months, on average, beyond the initial 12-month project period.  Specifically, we found that OJJDP had approved all 73 extensions  requested by grantees across the 28 VOCA awards included in our  review, but often did so without adhering to guidance established in the  OJP Financial Guide, as shown in table 1. For example, the OJP  Financial Guide requires that grantees submit a narrative outlining both  the extraordinary circumstances that would justify the proposed extension  and the effect a denial of the request would have on the project or  program. However, of the 73 grant extension requests OJJDP approved  from fiscal years 2010 through 2013, 72 did not contain such a narrative.  Further, while the OJP Financial Guide states that generally only 1  extension per award will be permitted, of the 73 extension requests that  OJJDP approved, 45 extended the award more than once. Finally, while  the OJP Financial Guide states that the maximum extension allowable is  generally 12 months, OJJDP approved extensions for 3 awards that were  longer—1 for 13 months and 2 for 17 months.
We also found that OJP does not have clear and consistent guidance for  when a grant extension should be approved. In addition to the guidelines  contained in the OJP Financial Guide—as outlined above in table 1—the  OJP Grant Manager’s Manual also contains guidance on extensions. In at  least one instance, the guidance within these two documents is  inconsistent. For example, the OJP Grant Manager’s Manual states that  grant awards are eligible to be extended for up to 12 months at a time for  up to 5 years in total. However, the OJP Financial Guide states that,  generally, only one extension per award should be granted, and that,  generally, the maximum allowable extension is for 12 months. The VOCA  program manager told us that when approving more than one extension  on the same award, she follows the OJP Grant Manager’s Manual, and  that she was not familiar with the guidance in the OJP Financial Guide  that states that grant awards should generally be extended only once.
According to OCFO officials, the OJP Financial Guide represents the  general guidelines and preferences for no-cost extensions but allows OJP  the flexibility, if needed, to grant extensions outside of those general  guidelines. Further, OCFO officials stated that the guidance in the OJP  Grant Manager’s Manual represents the upper limit on the flexibility that  OJP is afforded in the OJP Financial Guide. We have previously reported  on instances in which DOJ grant guidance was inconsistent, and we  stressed the importance of establishing mutually reinforcing strategies  and harmonizing program requirements to ensure consistency. Further,  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that  information should be communicated to management in a form that  enables management to carry out its responsibilities. Without clear  guidance on the circumstances and requirements for approving no-cost  extension requests, the VOCA program manager cannot ensure that she  is consistently adhering to the relevant requirements.
In combination with the administrative process delays described earlier,  OJJDP’s routine extension of VOCA grants’ project periods—made  without adherence to stated guidance—has led VOCA grantees to  maintain unexpended balances from prior-year grants while continuing to  receive new grant awards from OJJDP. Some VOCA grantees also  reported expending past years’ grant funds conservatively to ensure that  grant funds would be available to expend as they awaited administrative  clearance of their current-year award. For example, OJJDP awarded  VOCA grantees $15.6 million in fiscal year 2013, even though about $8.7  million in VOCA grant funding awarded to these same grantees in fiscal  year 2012 remained unexpended when the fiscal year 2013 grants were  awarded. In some cases, very little of the grant funding awarded in fiscal  year 2012 had been expended when the fiscal year 2013 grants were  awarded. For example, in September 2013, OJJDP awarded the Western  Regional CAC with a fiscal year 2013 VOCA grant of over $1 million when  the grantee had expended less than 1 percent of its fiscal year 2012  award. As seen in figure 3, this trend is consistent over the period of our  review, though grantees have made some progress in more fully  expending prior years’ grants since fiscal year 2010, when an average of  73 percent of grant funding had not been expended when OJJDP  awarded fiscal year 2011 grant funding. Two years later, grantees had not  expended an average of 59 percent of the fiscal year 2012 awards when  OJJDP awarded the fiscal year 2013 VOCA grants. However, this  reduction was not shared broadly across all of the VOCA grant programs.  In some cases, the percentage of unexpended grant funds increased over  this time period. For example, for the Regional CAC Program, grantees’  percentages of unexpended grant funds increased from 73 percent of  fiscal year 2010 grant funding when OJJDP awarded fiscal year 2011  grant funding to 86 percent of fiscal year 2012 funding when OJJDP  awarded fiscal year 2013 grant funding.
By carrying over unexpended grant funds beyond the terms of their initial  project periods, grantees are using prior years’ awards to pay for current  activities. Thus, grantees may be delaying implementation of more  recently approved planned projects and activities to improve the  investigation, prosecution, and treatment of child abuse. Establishing  and enforcing clear requirements for approving no-cost grant extensions  would better enable OJJDP to ensure that VOCA funds are being used in  a timely manner to support those directly assisting victims of child abuse.
section_title: OJJDP’s Performance Measures and Its Data Collection Methods Are Not Fully Aligned, Hindering Its Ability to Assess Grantee Performance
paragraphs: OJJDP does not have the performance data necessary to assess VOCA  grantees’ performance because the measures it has established to  assess performance do not fully align with the tools it has created to  collect desired performance information from grantees.
Each time OJJDP announces available funding through a specific grant  program, OJJDP develops a solicitation to describe the program to  applicants and to outline the set of performance measures to which  grantees will be held accountable once funded. OJJDP expects grantees  to report on these performance measures using its Data Collection and  Technical Assistance Tool—developed in 2005 as a comparable way to  collect quantitative performance data from grantees across all of its grant  programs that it could analyze in a quick and efficient manner. As  described earlier, all OJJDP grantees, including VOCA grantees, are  required to submit performance data reports using the DCTAT twice per  year, in conjunction with their semiannual narrative progress reports.  These narrative reports allow the grantees to provide qualitative data  describing their activities in a more general manner, but these reports do  not provide OJJDP with information to assess grantee performance  against the performance measures they established in the grant  solicitations. According to the OJJDP performance measures  coordinator, when developing solicitations, each grant program manager  should be selecting and including specific performance measures from  the universe of DCTAT measures. Further, the solicitations contain  instructions directing grantees to use the DCTAT system to report on  these measures. However, we found a misalignment between the  performance measures contained in the VOCA grant solicitations and the  universe of DCTAT measures. Specifically, OJJDP outlined a total of 44  performance measures across the 5 fiscal year 2012 VOCA grant  solicitations that it wanted grantees to address, but the DCTAT had  corresponding measures available for just 33 of these 44 measures. We  also found that even when corresponding DCTAT measures were  available, VOCA grantees did not include all such measures in their  DCTAT reports (see fig. 4). Specifically, of the 33 solicitation performance  measures that had corresponding DCTAT measures available, grantees  included just 13 in their fiscal year 2012 DCTAT reports. For example, the  fiscal year 2012 Regional CAC Program solicitation contained 10  performance measures, but the grantees included information on just 1 of  these 10 measures in their DCTAT submissions. Accordingly, OJJDP did  not have information to assess these grantees’ performance against the  other 9 measures that OJJDP had established in its Regional CAC  Program grant solicitation.
When we discussed with OJJDP officials the misalignment between the  solicitation measures and the measures grantees include in their DCTAT  reports, they could not explain the discrepancy. Further, OJJDP officials  told us that they have made certain DCTAT measures, such as those  addressing the use of evidence-based practices, mandatory to help  ensure that all grantees are reporting on common elements. These  mandatory DCTAT measures are used to inform DOJ’s annual  performance report, strategic plan, and other similar activities. However,  these mandatory measures do not necessarily relate to the performance  measures outlined in each individual grant solicitation. In addition to the  mandatory measures, OJJDP officials also explained that they designed  the DCTAT to include an array of optional measures, such as those  addressing the provision of technical assistance, through which grantees  can report on data elements of greatest salience to their work. Through  these optional measures, OJJDP expects grantees to respond to the  performance measures outlined in the grant solicitation. Nevertheless, as  shown in figure 4, the DCTAT submissions that VOCA grantees provided  OJJDP in fiscal year 2012 were not fully responsive to the performance  measures outlined in the VOCA grant solicitations. Accordingly, OJJDP  does not have complete data to assess grantees’ performance against  the performance measures it established in the solicitation.
VOCA grantees told us that when completing their DCTAT reports, they  complete the mandatory measures that the DCTAT system prompts them  to respond to, and may also report on optional measures. However, five  of the six VOCA grantees told us that they have not received guidance or  feedback from OJJDP on which optional DCTAT measures to include in  their reports. Accordingly, the grantees use their best judgment when  determining whether to include optional measures in their DCTAT reports.  For example, one grantee included eight optional measures in its fiscal  year 2012 DCTAT reports, but none of these optional measures  corresponded to the performance measures contained in the respective  VOCA grant solicitation. This grantee told us that it selected these  optional measures because they seemed to align with the goals,  objectives, and outcomes of its grant. OJJDP does offer some training to  grantees on the DCTAT system, but our review of this training content  showed that the training focused on reporting against the mandatory  measures and did not include a discussion of the need to use the DCTAT  optional measures in order to respond to the performance measures  outlined in the grant solicitation.
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government requires  agencies to engage in control activities—such as establishing and  reviewing performance measures—to ensure that management directives  are carried out. These standards further require that information should  be recorded and communicated to stakeholders in a form that enables  them to carry out their responsibilities. Because it has not developed  performance measures in the grant solicitations that correspond to  DCTAT measures, OJJDP does not have the information it needs to  measure and monitor grantee performance.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The VOCA grant programs are designed to help improve the investigation  and prosecution of child abuse cases, largely by providing funding,  training, and technical assistance to child abuse professionals and CACs  throughout the nation. Given the importance of addressing and reducing  child abuse, it is critical that the limited amount of federal funding  available for the VOCA grant programs be expended in a timely and  effective manner. However, OJJDP’s administrative requirements have  contributed to VOCA grantees’ challenges in fully expending their grant  awards within the original 12-month project period. Additionally, OJJDP’s  inconsistent and irregularly enforced extension guidance has resulted in  grantees’ spending down a backlog of VOCA funding, even while  accumulating new grant awards. Further, OJJDP does not have complete  information by which to evaluate the performance of VOCA grantees  against established performance measures to ensure that VOCA grant  funds are being used effectively to support improvements in the  investigation and prosecution of child abuse.
The VOCA grant programs are relatively small—with total awards of less  than $16 million in fiscal year 2013. However, many of the processes we  examined—including those related to grant expenditures and  performance management—are broadly applicable to other OJJDP  discretionary grant programs. Accordingly, the VOCA grant programs  could provide important lessons that may be applicable to other grant  programs.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To ensure the timely expenditure of VOCA grant funds and thereby limit  the carryover of unexpended grant balances, minimize the need for  multiple grant extensions, and strengthen OJJDP’s capacity to collect and  assess grantee performance information, we recommend that the  Assistant Attorney General for OJP work with the Administrator of OJJDP  to take the following four actions:  1.  conduct a study to examine whether any of its administrative  processes contribute to unnecessary delays in grantees’ ability to  expend VOCA funds within the established 12-month project period  and make modifications to these processes as appropriate;  2.  considering the results of this study, examine whether the current 12- month project period is realistic in light of any administrative  processes that cause delay but cannot be modified and extend the  project period if necessary;  3.  establish and enforce clear requirements for approving no-cost grant  4.  ensure that the performance measures outlined in its VOCA grant  solicitations correspond to existing DCTAT measures and clarify to  VOCA grantees that they are to report on such measures using the  DCTAT system. If existing DCTAT measures do not provide ample  coverage for the specific measures that the VOCA program wishes to  collect when posting the solicitation, then the Administrator should  ensure that the VOCA program provides clear, written instruction  requiring VOCA grantees to use their semiannual progress reports for  reporting on the specific performance measures that the solicitation  outlines that are not available in the DCTAT system.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DOJ for review and comment. OJP  provided written comments, which are reprinted in appendix IV, and  agreed with all four of the recommendations. OJP also provided technical  comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
With respect to the first recommendation, OJP concurred and noted  that OJJDP will examine the extent to which any of its administrative  processes contribute to unnecessary delays in grantees’ ability to  expend VOCA funds within the established 12-month project period.  OJP also noted that OJJDP will make modifications to these  processes as appropriate.
Regarding the second recommendation, OJP concurred and stated  that OJJDP will consider the results from the study it has planned in  response to our first recommendation in determining whether the  current 12-month project period is realistic.  If OJJDP determines that  a longer project period is warranted, it has agreed to make the change  prospectively. OJP further stated that in the interim, beginning in fiscal  year 2015, OJJDP will modify its approach to providing supplemental  awards. policies and procedures, as appropriate, and communicate all  changes during periodically scheduled OJJDP staff meetings.
Finally, for the fourth recommendation, OJP concurred and stated that  OJJDP will add the performance measures outlined in the VOCA  grant solicitations to the DCTAT system by fiscal year 2016.  Additionally, OJP stated that OJJDP will contact all the VOCA  grantees in fiscal year 2015 to clarify their requirement to submit  performance measurement data. OJP also stated that OJDP will  provide VOCA grantees with training on the collection and reporting of  performance measures data.
We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General of the United  States, the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs,  the Administrator for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency  Prevention, and interested congressional committees as appropriate. In  addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have any questions about our work, 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. GAO staff who made major contributions to  this report are listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Use of Victims of Child Abuse Act Grant Funds for Executive Compensation
paragraphs: This appendix provides information on grantees’ executive compensation  from fiscal years 2010 through 2013 for five grant programs established in  response to the Victims of Child Abuse Act (VOCA). The Office of  Justice Programs (OJP) instituted a policy in 2007 capping the amount of  grant funds that could be used for employee compensation. This policy  applies to all recipients of OJP discretionary grant awards over $250,000.  In accordance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A- 87, which requires federally funded compensation be “reasonable,” OJP  set the cap at 110 percent of the maximum amount payable to a member  of the federal government’s Senior Executive Service (SES). Specifically,  grantees were prohibited from using grant funds to pay for any portion of  an employee’s cash compensation if that employee’s total cash  compensation (from all sources) exceeded the cap.
In 2010, in response to departmental concerns that the restrictions were  hindering OJP’s ability to attract experienced, high-quality researchers  and experts, OJP revised its compensation cap policy. The revised policy  permits grantees to compensate employees at rates above the 110  percent cap provided that the portion of an employee’s total annual  compensation paid with federal funds does not exceed the cap. For  example, the maximum SES salary for fiscal year 2013 was $179,700,  meaning that the OJP compensation cap applies for salaries of $197,670  or more—110 percent of the SES salary level. Under the original 2007  policy, a grantee seeking to pay an employee a total of $200,000 in  annual cash compensation—$100,000 paid with OJP grant funds and  $100,000 paid with revenue from private donors—could not do so.  However, under the revised 2010 policy, the grantee would be allowed to  contribute $100,000 in federal funding toward the $200,000 salary  because the new policy limits the amount of federal funds that a grantee  may direct toward an employee’s compensation rather than limiting the  total compensation that an employee may receive.
Both the 2007 and 2010 policies include a provision stating that grantees  may apply for a waiver of the compensation restrictions. OJP officials  stated that they consider several factors when evaluating a waiver  request, including the particular qualifications and expertise of the  individual, the uniqueness of the service being provided, and the  individual’s specific knowledge of the program or project being  undertaken with award funds, among other factors.
For the VOCA grant programs, OJP has approved three waivers since the  compensation cap policy was instituted, in fiscal year 2007. These  waivers were filed by the Midwest Regional Children’s Advocacy Center  (CAC) in fiscal years 2007, 2008, and 2009 in order to compensate two  physicians with specific expertise in child abuse and neglect above the  compensation cap. For example, in fiscal year 2007, the Midwest  Regional CAC sought to use VOCA funds to support the physicians’  annual salaries of $201,905 and $187,200. These salaries exceeded the  cap by 9 percent and 1 percent respectively, although the grantee  charged only 10 percent ($20,191) and 25 percent ($46,800) of these  salaries to the VOCA grant. Under the 2010 policy, this grantee would not  have needed to apply for a waiver since the portion of grant funds being  used for the salary did not exceed the 110 percent cap.
Since OJP adopted its revised policy, in 2010, no VOCA grantee has  sought a waiver of the compensation restrictions. In addition, we found  that from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2013, no VOCA grantee  reported plans to pay any employee a total annual salary in excess of the  cap, regardless of the source of funding. As shown in table 2, we found  that VOCA grantees planned to pay their executive directors an average  annual salary of $137,759, of which an average of $52,569, or 38  percent, was funded through a VOCA grant. Aside from the executive  directors, VOCA grantees collectively used their VOCA awards to support  the salaries of between 44 and 62 employees annually, among other uses  of the funds. As shown below, the average salary VOCA grantees paid  non-executive directors was $46,194, of which, an average of $36,019, or  78 percent, was paid with VOCA funds.
section_title: Appendix II: Victims of Child Abuse Act (VOCA) Grant Recipients and Funding, Fiscal Years 2010 through 2013
paragraphs: This appendix provides information on funding for the VOCA grant  programs from fiscal years 2010 through 2013, as well as the purposes  and recipients of this funding. Specifically, table 3 shows funding for the  five grant programs established in response to subtitle A of VOCA: the  Children’s Advocacy Center (CAC) Subgrant Program, the Regional CAC  Program, the CAC Membership and Accreditation Program, Training and  Technical Assistance to Child Abuse Professionals, and Training and  Technical Assistance to Child Abuse Prosecutors.
section_title: Appendix III: Administrative Processes and Overlap of Victims of Child Abuse Act Grant Funds Awarded in Fiscal Years 2010 - 2013
paragraphs: This appendix provides a graphical presentation of how delays as a result  of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s (OJJDP)  administrative review processes and routine approval of grant extension  requests contribute to a backlog of grant funds amongst grant recipients.  For example, as shown in figure 5, the National Children’s Alliance (NCA)  was awarded a $13.19 million grant under the Children’s Advocacy  Center (CAC) National Subgrant Program in late fiscal year 2010. OJJDP  approved NCA’s requests for more than 2 years of no-cost grant  extensions on this grant, and NCA did not fully expend the grant until the  middle of fiscal year 2014. During this time, OJJDP awarded NCA 3 new  grants under the CAC Subgrant Program—1 each in fiscal years 2011,  2012, and 2013.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Justice
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Joy Booth (Assistant Director),  Katherine Lee (Analyst-in-Charge), Claudine Brenner, Michele Fejfar, Eric  Hauswirth, Susan Hsu, Jasmine Masand, Linda Miller, Janet Temko- Blinder, Sarah Turpin, and Stephen Yoder made key contributions to this  report.