U.S. Attorneys: Controls Over Grant-Related Activities Should Be Enhanced
Published: 2003-06-10T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Ninety-three U.S. Attorneys serve 94 judicial districts (the same U.S. Attorney serves the District of Guam and the District of the Northern Mariana Islands) under the direction of the Attorney General. Among other things, the Attorney General expects U.S. Attorneys to lead or be involved with the community in preventing and controlling crime including efforts to secure Department of Justice (DOJ) grant funds and work with grantees. This report provides information about the guidance U.S. Attorneys are given in carrying out their responsibilities with regard to DOJ grants. It makes recommendations to assess compliance with guidance and to reduce the potential for conflicts of interest.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: U.S. Attorneys' grant activities are guided by legal and ethical considerations. General guidelines established by the Attorney General in 1994 and revised in 2001 outline how U.S. Attorneys and their staff can be involved in their community's crime prevention and control efforts, including DOJ grant activities. Last year, DOJ issued guidance in response to U.S. Attorneys' questions about their role in relation to two DOJ grant programs--Project Safe Neighborhoods and Weed and Seed. In addition, through its Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA), DOJ provided training on ethical considerations in dealing with grant applicants and grantees under both grant programs. Although EOUSA has an evaluation program to assess and oversee the overall operations of each U.S. Attorney's Office, the evaluations are not designed to assess whether U.S. Attorneys and their staffs are following the recently established guidelines. Without a mechanism to make this assessment, EOUSA does not have assurance that DOJ guidance is adequately understood, has reached all those who are covered by it, and is correctly applied. In addition, federal regulations and procedures call for systematic financial disclosure reporting to facilitate the review of possible conflicts of interest and ensure the efficient and honest operation of the government. However, while GAO did not identify any incidences of conflicts of interest, certain individuals--staff in U.S. Attorneys Offices that work with grantees and nonfederal members of committees that are appointed by each U.S. Attorney to, among other things, assess the merits of grant proposals--are not required to disclose whether they are free from actual or apparent conflicts of interest. Based on the merits of GAO's work, DOJ officials stated that they would issue a directive to require members of these committees to sign a self-certified conflict of interest statement that is to be held on file subject to DOJ grant monitoring.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: U.S. Attorneys are appointed by the President of the United States, with  advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. Under the direction of the Attorney  General, each of the 93 U.S. Attorneys is the chief federal law enforcement  officer of the United States within his or her particular jurisdiction. During  fiscal year 2002, the Department of Justice (DOJ) spent about $1.5 billion  on its 94 U.S. Attorneys Offices to prosecute individuals charged with  violations of federal criminal law, represent the government in civil cases,  and collect money and property owed to the government. In addition, U.S.  Attorneys Offices were involved in initiatives to prevent and control crime  in their communities, including some supported by DOJ grant funds.
This report responds to your request that we provide information on U.S.  Attorneys involvement in DOJ grant programs. To address your request,  we are reporting on (1) guidance available to U.S. Attorneys and their  offices in carrying out their responsibilities with regard to DOJ grants and  (2) oversight of those responsibilities by DOJ. To meet our objectives, we  interviewed officials with the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys  (EOUSA) and Office of Justice Programs (OJP) in Washington, D.C. and  obtained and reviewed information about the guidance available to and  the oversight of U.S. Attorneys Offices in regard to DOJ grant programs.  As agreed with your staff, we also visited 10 of the 94 U.S. Attorneys  Offices and interviewed U.S. Attorneys and their staffs in each office. We  performed our work from December 2001 to May 2003 in accordance with  generally accepted government auditing standards.
U.S. Attorneys Offices carry out their grant-related responsibilities related  to two DOJ programs—Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) and the Weed  and Seed Program (Weed and Seed). PSN is a multiyear commitment,  initiated by the President and the Attorney General in fiscal year 2001, to  take a comprehensive strategic approach to the enforcement of firearms  laws. To implement this strategy, the Attorney General required each of  the 94 U.S. Attorneys Offices to support, promote, and implement a  comprehensive gun violence reduction program within each local district,  working in partnership with communities and state and local law  enforcement agencies. Under PSN, DOJ’s OJP awards grant funds to  organizations that work with PSN task forces, in coordination with the  U.S. Attorneys Office, to provide support for community outreach, crime  analysis, development of promising gun violence reduction programs, and  juvenile-related firearm reduction programs. Grants are awarded based on  input from the U.S. Attorney and a community based grant selection  committee, which is comprised of nonfederal law enforcement and  community leaders that are appointed by the U.S. Attorney. OJP’s Bureau  of Justice Assistance (BJA) administers the grants awarded to support  PSN, including monitoring grants once they have been awarded. In fiscal  year 2002, DOJ awarded about $65 million for grants to support PSN task  forces. DOJ also expects to award about $60 million in fiscal year 2003 and  again in fiscal year 2004 to support PSN task forces.
Weed and Seed is a community based, multiagency program, initiated in  fiscal year 1991, to “weed out” crime from targeted neighborhoods, then  “seed” the site with a variety of programs and resources to prevent crime  from recurring. Weed and Seed sites are provided grants, technical  assistance, and training to implement programs that will help them deal  with serious crime in their communities. Under the guidance of the U.S.  Attorney, federal, state, and local officials work together at each site to   (1) implement activities designed to reduce drug crimes, gangs, and other  violent crimes in high crime neighborhoods and (2) revitalize those areas  by implementing a range of human service programs and economic  development to keep crimes from recurring. OJP’s Executive Office for  Weed and Seed (EOWS) has overall responsibility for the Weed and Seed  Program, including establishing policy and monitoring Weed and Seed  grants. In fiscal year 2003, DOJ expects to award about $53.9 million for  grants under the Weed and Seed Program.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: U. S. Attorneys serve as the nation’s principal litigators under the direction  of the Attorney General. U.S. Attorneys conduct most of the trial work in  which the United States is a party. Under Title 28 U.S.C. 547, U.S.  Attorneys have three statutory responsibilities:    prosecute criminal cases brought by the federal government    prosecute and defend civil cases in which the United States is a party,    collect debts owed the federal government that are administratively  uncollectible.
EOUSA was established to provide a liaison between DOJ in Washington,  D.C., and the 93 U.S. Attorneys. EOUSA provides each U.S. Attorney and  the 94 U.S. Attorneys Offices general executive assistance and direction,  policy development, administrative management and oversight,  operational support, and coordination with other components of DOJ and  other federal agencies. In fiscal year 2002, U.S. Attorneys’, and EOUSA’s  budgets were about $1.5 billion and $64.6 million, respectively.
OJP, the grant making arm of DOJ, provides grants to various  organizations, including state and local governments, universities, and  private foundations, that are intended to develop the nation’s capacity to  prevent and control crime, administer justice, and assist crime victims.  OJP’s Assistant Attorney General is responsible for overall management  and oversight of OJP through setting policy and for ensuring that OJP  policies and programs reflect the priorities of the President, the Attorney  General, and the Congress. The Assistant Attorney General promotes  coordination among the various bureaus and offices within OJP. Staff of  the bureaus and program offices develop OJP grant programs, accept and  review applications, make grant awards, and manage and monitor grantees  until the award is closed out. In fiscal year 2002, OJP’s budget was about  $4.3 billion.
According to OJP and EOUSA officials, U.S. Attorneys and their staff  currently are involved in two DOJ programs involving OJP grants—PSN  and Weed and Seed. As mentioned earlier, BJA is responsible for national  administration and management of grants awarded under the PSN  initiative. PSN, which was initiated in fiscal year 2001 by the President and  the Attorney General, was designed to commit more than $900 million over  a 3-year period to hire new federal and state prosecutors, support  investigators, provide training, and develop and promote community  outreach efforts all with the goal of focusing community attention and  energy on reducing gun violence. Under the program, U.S. Attorneys were  to take the lead in mobilizing federal, state, and local officials in their  districts by establishing PSN task forces to develop comprehensive gun  violence reduction strategies or review and enhance existing strategies.  PSN task forces are to implement these strategies, in part, through the use  of various OJP grants awarded in each U.S. Attorney’s district. These OJP  grants are the (1) Research Partner/Crime Analyst Grants to support the  strategic planning and accountability portion of PSN, (2) Media Outreach  and Community Engagement Grants to help task forces in their  community outreach initiatives, (3) Project Sentry Grants to help task  forces address local juvenile related gun crimes, and (4) Open Solicitation  Grants to support comprehensive and innovative approaches to reduce  gun violence in local communities.
EOWS is responsible for providing national leadership as well as  management and administration of the Weed and Seed Program, which in  fiscal year 2002 had a budget of about $59 million. Under the program, U.S.  Attorneys are to serve as both the main contact to Weed and Seed sites for  EOWS and as facilitator of the program’s community based coordination  efforts. Accordingly, U.S. Attorneys are to work with local stakeholders to  develop and implement a community based, multiagency strategy that  proposes to “weed out” crime from targeted neighborhoods, then “seed”  the site with a variety of programs and resources to prevent crime from  recurring. In fiscal year 2002, there were about 229 Weed and Seed sites  and the average grant awarded per site was about $200,000.
section_title: DOJ Guidelines Covering U.S. Attorneys’ Grant Activities
paragraphs: Guidelines first established by the Attorney General in 1994 stated that  U.S. Attorneys and their staff may be involved in their community’s crime  prevention and control efforts—including efforts to secure DOJ grant  funds and work with grantees—as long as they subscribe to legal and  ethical considerations. DOJ components have recently issued related  guidelines for U.S. Attorneys and their staff that, among other things,  focuses specifically on their dealings with grant applicants and grantees  under the PSN and Weed and Seed Programs. According to EOUSA  officials, DOJ issued program specific guidelines in response to the  numerous questions by U.S. Attorneys and their staff concerning their role  in relation to PSN and Weed and Seed.
subsections: section_title: Attorney General Guidelines Encourage U.S. Attorneys to Be Active in Community Based Programs Involving DOJ Grants
paragraphs: U.S. Attorneys are encouraged to be involved in community based  activities that seek and secure DOJ grant funds as long as they and their  staff subscribe to legal and ethical considerations commensurate with  being a government employee, an attorney, and U.S. Attorney. According  to guidelines established by the Attorney General in 1994 and revised in  January 2001, U.S. Attorneys are encouraged to engage in community  based crime prevention and control activities and form coalitions with  nonfederal, community based organizations, private entities, and law  enforcement because “promoting crime prevention initiatives enhances  the presence of the Department of Justice in communities around the  country and has proven effective in reducing crime.” The guidelines state  that, when working with nonfederal entities in implementing crime  prevention initiatives, U.S. Attorneys and their staff are to  remain impartial in carrying out their official duties and be careful to  avoid the appearance of partiality;   consider conflicts of interest statutes when crime prevention activities  involve persons or organizations with whom they have a personal,  financial, or business relationship; and    avoid participation in coalitions that include individuals and nonfederal  organizations that may be victims, witnesses, subjects, or targets in  matters pending in their districts.
Thus, under the Attorney General’s guidelines, U.S. Attorneys may  convene meetings with other potential coalition participants to discuss  operating needs, program initiatives, event planning, and other related  matters, but they are to avoid participating in budget decisions of a  coalition, including decisions regarding the expenditure of funds that  could create the appearance that the U.S. Attorney is managing an entity  outside of DOJ. Also, according to the guidelines, U.S. Attorneys may  endorse specific coalition-based program initiatives as long as they refrain  from endorsing specific organizations; give presentations about coalition  initiatives at fund-raising events as long as the presentation addresses  official DOJ issues and does not solicit contributions; and participate in  public service announcements with other coalition members when the  purpose of the announcement is to further DOJ’s mission and coalition  initiatives.
With regard to grants, the guidelines state that U.S. Attorneys may provide  potential grant applicants with public information regarding sources of  federal funding and respond to inquiries regarding the grant application  process. Furthermore, they may draft a letter of recommendation to OJP  supporting a grant application. According to the guidelines, this letter can  identify the applicant’s accomplishments and may express the U.S.  Attorney’s views on whether government program funds should or should  not be granted to a particular applicant. However, U.S. Attorneys’ names  are not to appear on grant applications unless required by law, and U.S.  Attorneys are not to otherwise contact federal agencies on behalf of an  applicant seeking federal grant monies.
section_title: DOJ Has Recently Published Guidelines for U.S. Attorney Offices Related to PSN and Weed and Seed Activities
paragraphs: DOJ components involved in the PSN and Weed and Seed Programs have  taken steps to provide specific guidance to U.S. Attorneys and their offices  in carrying out their grant-related responsibilities. In May 2002, EOUSA  told U.S. Attorneys and their staff that BJA had published Web based  guidelines for U.S. Attorneys Offices and PSN task forces to instruct them  about their role in the process to solicit, review, and select grant  proposals. According to the memorandum issued by EOUSA’s Director,  the guidance was designed to provide step-by-step instructions on the  grant process that included guidance about specific ethics issues. In  December 2002, EOUSA told U.S. Attorneys and their staff about new PSN  guidelines—again including guidance about ethics issues—designed to  cover grants to be awarded in fiscal year 2003. During the same month, the  EOUSA Director sent a memorandum to all U.S. Attorneys, their senior  staff, and Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee (LECC)  Coordinators about U.S. Attorneys Offices’ responsibilities in  implementing the Weed and Seed Program, including how to deal with  ethics concerns related to Weed and Seed grant activities. Appendix I  provides greater detail on the guidelines DOJ components issued for U.S.  Attorneys Offices on PSN and Weed and Seed during calendar year 2002.
According to EOUSA officials, the decision to issue guidelines for each  program resulted from DOJ’s overall effort to develop the PSN Program.  EOUSA’s Deputy Legal Counsel in EOUSA’s Office of Legal Counsel said  that the PSN guidance was not prompted by any particular incident;  rather, it was developed in response to numerous questions about PSN- related ethics issues from U.S. Attorneys and their staff as the program  was being developed. The Deputy Legal Counsel said the exercise,  combined with similar questions by U.S. Attorneys and their staff  subsequently prompted EOUSA to develop the December 2002 guidance  for the Weed and Seed Program.
EOUSA’s Deputy Legal Counsel also said that EOUSA has provided ethics  training to U.S. Attorneys and their staff on their roles and responsibilities  as it relates to grants offered and awarded under both programs. In  January 2002, EOUSA provided a presentation to U.S. Attorneys at the first  national PSN conference and in April 2002, EOUSA provided the same  presentation for each districts’ LECC Coordinators at a similar conference.  The presentation included a discussion of what U.S. Attorneys and their  staff can and cannot do when participating in the grant process. The  Deputy Legal Counsel said that ethics training pertinent to the Weed and  Seed Program was also provided to LECCs during October 2002. Also, in  December 2002, EOUSA produced and disseminated a video that  discussed the process U.S. Attorneys are to follow when working with  PSN task forces during the grantee selection and application process.
EOUSA’s Legal Counsel and Deputy Legal Counsel also indicated that they  believe that training, available guidance on ethics issues, and staff  awareness about standards of conflicts and actual or apparent conflicts of  interest are sufficient to ensure that ethical lapses will not occur. They  said that they were unaware of any ethical lapses and said that if questions  were raised, DOJ’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) would investigate  them. OIG staff we contacted who were responsible for dealing with  ethical issues at DOJ said they were aware of only one complaint involving  a U.S. Attorney and the Weed and Seed Program and none regarding PSN.
section_title: DOJ Has Not Established Oversight Mechanisms to Assess and Ensure Compliance with Recent Guidelines
paragraphs: An effective internal control process is one that provides management  with a reasonable level of assurance that agency operating, financial, and  compliance objectives are being achieved on a systematic basis. EOUSA  has an evaluation program to assess and oversee the overall operations of  each U.S. Attorneys Office—including operations associated with the  management of the PSN and Weed and Seed Programs—but the  evaluations are not designed to assess compliance with the PSN and Weed  and Seed guidelines recently issued. Similarly, federal regulations and  procedures call for systematic financial disclosure reporting to, among  other things, facilitate the review of possible conflicts of interest to  guarantee the efficient and honest operation of the government. However,  DOJ has not established a financial disclosure reporting mechanism for  certain individuals—employees of U.S. Attorneys Offices that work with  grantees and potential grantees and nonfederal appointees to PSN grant  selection committees—to provide management assurance that these  individuals are free from actual or apparent conflicts of interest.
subsections: section_title: EOUSA Does Not Assess Compliance with Recent PSN and Weed and Seed Guidelines
paragraphs: According to the Comptroller General’s Standards for Internal Control in  the Federal Government, internal control activities are the policies,  procedures, techniques, and mechanisms that enforce management’s  directives. They include, for example, steps to set the specific standards or  criteria to be achieved by staff as well as steps that provide management  the information to determine on a routine basis whether the standards are  being met and to take corrective action when they are not. EOUSA has an  evaluation program to assess and oversee the overall operations of each  U.S. Attorneys Office that includes an assessment of the office’s  involvement in and performance related to the Weed and Seed and PSN  Programs. However, the evaluations are not designed to assess  compliance with the Weed and Seed and PSN guidance related to ethical  concerns that EOUSA recently issued.
Under 28 C.F.R. Part 0.22, EOUSA is to evaluate the performance of the  U.S. Attorneys Offices, make appropriate reports, and take corrective  actions if necessary. EOUSA’s Evaluation and Review Staff (EARS) is  responsible for the evaluation program, which, according to EOUSA, is an  internal review program designed, among other things, to examine  management controls and prevent waste, loss, unauthorized use, or  misappropriation in federal programs, as required under the Federal  Manager’s Financial Integrity Act. EARS evaluations are conducted in each  of the 94 U.S. Attorneys Offices every 3 years by teams of experienced  Assistant U.S. Attorneys, and administrative and financial litigation  personnel from other U.S. Attorneys Offices. According to EOUSA’s  Assistant Director for EARS, these assessments focus on personnel,  management, and workload issues in individual U.S. Attorneys Offices and  include, among other things, an assessment of the management and  operations of the local Weed and Seed and PSN Programs.
Our review of EARS guidelines show that when evaluating the  management of the PSN and Weed and Seed Programs in U.S. Attorneys  Offices, review teams were to focus on task force or committee  management issues rather than compliance with the guidelines recently  published. For example, the template for the PSN part of the EARS review  instructs EARS reviewers to examine, among other things, whether the  PSN strategy had been implemented. If so, evaluators were instructed to  provide information on a variety of matters, including  the names of the PSN coordinators and the litigation units, sections, or  branch offices where they serve; the nature of the partnerships that have been developed with federal,  state, and local law enforcement and whether the partnerships are  districtwide or tailored to meet the individual needs or problems facing  branch offices; the community outreach activities associated with PSN; the number of specially allocated attorney and support staff positions  allocated to the office and whether they have been filled; and   examples of successes achieved under the program.
For the Weed and Seed Program, the template instructs review teams to  respond to the following five questions:    Does the district have a funded Weed and Seed Program? If so,  describe the site, its organization, committees, management, programs,  and initiatives.
Who in the U.S. Attorneys Offices supervises and works with the Weed  and Seed Program?
What is the U.S. Attorneys’ role in the Weed and Seed Program?
What other U.S. Attorneys Offices staff, such as the LECC or Assistant  U.S. Attorneys have a role in the Weed and Seed Program?
Do you know of any problems or concerns with the Weed and Seed  Program?
EOUSA’s Assistant Director for EARS said that reviews for both programs  were broad based management reviews and were not designed to be  audits of the programs. The Assistant Director also said that there are  plans to revise the PSN part of EARS to include an evaluation of gun-crime  data that is to be reported to the Attorney General twice yearly, but there  are no similar plans to revise the Weed and Seed part of EARS. Regarding  the recently issued PSN and Weed and Seed guidelines, the Assistant  Director said that there are no plans to revise EARS to assess compliance  with the guidelines and determine whether they are working as intended.
section_title: U.S. Attorney Staff That Work with Grantees Not Required to File Confidential Financial Disclosure Forms
paragraphs: Staff in U.S. Attorneys Offices can be delegated responsibility to lead or  work with community organizations that receive Weed and Seed grant  funds, but these staff are not required to file disclosure forms. These forms  might reveal relationships that could be actual or potential conflicts of  interest. According to 5 C.F.R. 2634.904, each officer or employee whose  position is classified at GS-15 or below or at a rate of pay that is less than  120 percent of the minimum rate of pay for GS-15, is required to file a  confidential financial disclosure report if the agency concludes that the  duties and responsibilities of the employee’s position require the employee  to:    participate personally and substantially through decision or exercise of  judgment, in taking a government action regarding contracting or  procurement; administering or monitoring grants, subsidies, licenses,  or other federal conferred financial or operational benefits; regulating  or auditing any nonfederal entity; or other activities in which the final  decision or action will have a direct and substantial economic effect on  the interests or nonfederal entity or   avoid involvement in a real or apparent conflict of interest, and to carry  out the purpose behind any statute, executive order, rule, or regulation  applicable or administered by that employee.
According to 5 C.F.R. 2634.901, these reports are designed to (1) assist an  agency in administering its ethics program and counseling its employees  and (2) facilitate the review of possible conflicts of interest to guarantee  the efficient and honest operation of the government.
During our review, we examined the most recent summary of EARS  reports dated between June 1997 and April 2000, for the 10 U.S. Attorneys  Offices we visited. In some of these districts, U.S. Attorneys participated  on the Weed and Seed steering committee, while in others, Assistant U.S.  Attorneys or LECC Coordinators were delegated responsibility for  working with Weed and Seed committees, and according to one report,  “run” the Weed and Seed Program. None of the EARS reports addressed  any involvement with the PSN program because when the reviews were  completed, PSN had not been implemented. Our work in the 10 districts  also showed that 9 of the districts had active Weed and Seed sites in place,  and in some districts, new Weed and Seed sites were under consideration.  Among the districts that had active Weed and Seed sites, some of the U.S.  Attorneys told us that they actively worked with Weed and Seed  committees, whereas others delegated responsibility to an Assistant U.S.  Attorney or to LECC Coordinators. For example, in one district the LECC  Coordinator represented the U.S. Attorney on the Weed and Seed  committee, while in another district the LECC Coordinator helped manage  the Weed and Seed sites day-to-day operations.
Given recent EOUSA, BJA, and EOWS efforts to publish PSN and Weed  and Seed guidelines and train U.S. Attorneys and their staff about ethical  concerns, we asked if U.S. Attorneys and their staff that deal with  potential grant applicants and grantees were required to file financial  disclosure statements. They provided information, published on DOJ  internal Web pages, which showed that under current DOJ guidelines:    U.S. Attorneys, Assistant U.S. Attorneys in supervisory positions,  Senior Litigation Counsels, Special Government Employees, and  Schedule C employees are required to file a Public Financial Disclosure  Report within 30 days of assuming their covered position and annually  thereafter.
All line Assistant U.S. Attorneys and special Assistant U.S. Attorneys  are required to file a Confidential Conflict of Interest Certification  Form to certify that they have no conflict of interest in each matter  they undertake.
Employees occupying positions in which they exercise significant  judgment on matters that have an economic effect on the interests of a  nonfederal entity are required to file a confidential financial disclosure  report within 30 days on entering a covered position and every year by  October 31, including positions where duties involve contracting,  procurement, administering grants, regulating, or auditing a nonfederal  entity or other activities in which the final decision or action will have  a direct and substantial economic effect on the interests of any  nonfederal entity.
EOUSA’s Deputy Legal Counsel also told us that LECC Coordinators and  Assistant U.S. Attorneys that work with organizations involving grantees  are not required to file confidential disclosure forms because they are not  responsible for administering or monitoring grants. The Deputy Legal  Counsel pointed out that employees in U.S. Attorneys Offices are not  supposed to monitor grants. The Deputy Legal Counsel said that the Weed  and Seed guidelines instruct employees to not act on behalf of EOWS;  rather, they are to notify EOWS of any issues that may arise during the  course of the grant relationship and EOWS is to handle the matter under  its own procedures. Nonetheless, the Deputy Legal Counsel acknowledged  that U.S. Attorneys Office staff that work with grantees under the Weed  and Seed Program might encounter situations that could be perceived as  real or apparent conflicts of interest. Furthermore, the Deputy Legal  Counsel and EOUSA’s Deputy Director said that, based on our inquiry, it  might be worthwhile considering a change to procedures so that LECC  Coordinators would be required to file confidential disclosure statements.  The Deputy Legal Counsel added that Assistant U.S. Attorneys are already  required to file the confidential certification form for each matter they are  involved with and was not clear whether involvement in a community  Weed and Seed activity related to grants would constitute a matter  covered by the certification form.
section_title: PSN Selection Committee Members Are Not Screened for Actual or Apparent Conflicts of Interest
paragraphs: In developing the PSN grant program, BJA modeled the PSN selection  committee process after its peer review process, where peer review  committees are used to assess the merits of the grant application and  make recommendations about worthy grant applications. However,  whereas BJA has established a process to screen peer reviewers for actual  or apparent conflicts of interest before they are appointed to peer review  committees, it has not established a similar process for members of PSN  selection committees.
According to a BJA project manager, BJA uses a multistep process to  screen potential peer reviewers for conflict of interest in reviewing  applications for grants. BJA hires a peer review contractor who is  responsible for conducting a preliminary screening of potential peer  reviewers for conflicts of interest based on guidelines established by BJA.  Once past the preliminary screening, peer reviewers are asked to self- identify any conflicts of interest by signing a certification statement.
EOUSA’s PSN coordinator told us that BJA has delegated its peer review  authority to U.S. Attorneys and, as discussed earlier, BJA has issued  guidance that includes the steps the U.S. Attorneys are to follow when  appointing members of the selection committee—peer reviewers for PSN  grants. BJA’s guidance states that the selection committee can include any  or all of the other members of the PSN task force, except the U.S.  Attorney, a member of his or her staff, or any federal employee, as long as  their participation does not represent an actual or apparent conflict of  interest. The guidance further reminds the U.S. Attorneys that the  Standards of Conduct and Conflict of Interest Rules that apply to him or  her and their staff also apply to members of the selection committee.  However, unlike the peer review process employed by BJA for other grant  programs, U.S. Attorneys are not required to screen the selection  committee members they appoint for actual or apparent conflicts of  interests, nor are committee members asked to self-identify any actual or  apparent conflicts of interest.
Our discussions with BJA and EOUSA officials responsible for PSN  indicated that the lack of a mechanism for identifying actual or apparent  conflicts of interest among selection committee members was not a  problem because they believe (1) appointees from these organizations  would likely be covered by their own ethical guidance governing their  capacity as a selection committee member and (2) the geographic area  covered by individual PSN grants is so small that local jurisdictions would  not select someone to serve on the selection committee that has a vested  interest in who the grants are awarded to. BJA’s Director of the Programs  Division told us that, when BJA developed the guidelines for PSN selection  committees, BJA had not thought of including a requirement that selection  committee members submit a signed self-disclosure conflict of interest  statement. The Director of the Programs Division said that, based on our  inquiry it might be useful to include some type of requirement for conflict  of interest reporting to add an additional level of assurance about the  integrity of the PSN Program. Accordingly, in April 2003, the Director, BJA  Programs Division, said that BJA would issue a directive requiring PSN  fiscal agents to collect a signed self-certified conflict of interest statement  from PSN selection committee members. Fiscal agents would be required  to maintain the statements on file subject to BJA review in their capacity  as grant monitors.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: DOJ efforts to provide guidance to U.S. Attorneys Offices regarding their  involvement in activities associated with grants awarded under the PSN  and Weed and Seed Programs are notable. However, as U.S. Attorneys and  their staff become more heavily involved in these grant programs, they  could increasingly encounter actual or apparent conflicts of interest that  could undermine the integrity of the programs both within districts and  nationwide. Without a mechanism for monitoring U.S. Attorneys Offices’  compliance with available guidance, DOJ does not have reasonable  assurance that its steps taken to date—such as the issuance of guidance,  ethics training, and video presentations—are adequately understood and  have reached all those who are covered by this guidance. DOJ  components, such as EOUSA and BJA, are also not positioned to  determine (1) if the guidelines are correctly applied and actually and  systematically achieving the end result of preventing actual or apparent  ethical conflicts or (2) whether guidelines related to grant activities could  be clarified, strengthened, or improved. In addition, the absence of  confidential financial disclosure reporting for U.S. Attorneys Office  employees that work with grantees hinders the U.S. Attorneys ability to   (1) fully administer these programs in the context of ethics considerations  and (2) identify possible conflicts of interest to guarantee the efficient and  honest operation of the government.
section_title: Recommendations
paragraphs: We recommend that the Attorney General instruct the Director of EOUSA  and U.S. Attorneys to take steps to further mitigate the risk associated  with U.S. Attorneys Offices’ involvement in the grant components of the  PSN and Weed and Seed Programs. Specifically, we recommend that  EOUSA and U.S. Attorneys (1) establish a mechanism to assess and  oversee compliance with recently issued guidelines pertaining to the grant  activities of U.S. Attorneys Offices and ensure that the guidelines are  working as intended and (2) require that U.S. Attorneys’ staffs who work  with community organizations on grant-related matters be required to file  financial disclosure reports certifying that they are free from conflicts of  interest.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: On May 13, 2003, we requested comments on a draft of this report from the  Attorney General.  On May 19, 2003, Department of Justice officials  informed us that they had no comments on the report.
Copies of this report will be made available to other interested parties.  This report will also be available on the GAO Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions, please contact my Assistant Director, John F.  Mortin, or me at (202) 512-8777. You may also contact Mr. Mortin at  mortinj@gao.gov, or me at jonespl@gao.gov. Key contributors to this  report were Daniel R. Garcia, Grace Coleman, and Maria Romero.
section_title: Appendix I: Summary of Guidelines Issued for U.S. Attorneys Regarding Grants Awarded under the PSN and Weed and Seed Programs
paragraphs: The following paragraphs summarize the guidelines the Department of  Justice (DOJ) issued for U.S. Attorneys and their staff during calendar year  2002 regarding their role in working with grants and grantees awarded  under the Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) and Weed and Seed  Programs.
subsections: section_title: PSN Grants
paragraphs: During 2002, DOJ issued two sets of guidelines for U.S. Attorneys and PSN  task forces in carrying out their responsibilities under PSN. Under the May  2002 PSN guidelines, each U.S. Attorneys Office was instructed to work  with interested federal, state, and local officials to form a PSN task force,  chaired or co-chaired by the U.S. Attorney, to develop a comprehensive  strategic plan. As part of this process, the task force was to formulate its  overall mission and goals after which the U.S. Attorney was instructed to  designate a selection committee to (1) review eligible grant proposals and  (2) select a single grantee for Research Partner/Crime Analyst and Media  Outreach and Community Engagement grants funded in fiscal year 2002.  The guidelines stated that the selection committee was not to include  members of the U.S. Attorneys’ staff, but could include other members of  the task force as long as their participation did not represent an actual or  apparent conflict of interest. In addition, the guidelines instructed the U.S.  Attorney to    certify to the selection committee, based on the recommendations of  the task force, whether potential grantees are suitable candidates for  federal funding and   convey the committee’s choice to the Bureau of Justice Assistance  (BJA), along with a letter from the U.S. Attorney, certifying that (1) the  potential grant recipient is free from allegations of criminal misconduct  and current investigation and (2) the applicant’s proposal supports the  PSN task force activities, missions, and goals.
In December 2002, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA)  announced that BJA had issued similar guidelines for reviewing and  selecting applicants for grants funded in fiscal year 2003. As before, U.S.  Attorneys and their staff were instructed to work with the PSN task force  and, among other things, the U.S. Attorney was to designate a selection  committee—not comprised of the U.S. Attorneys’ staff or federal  employees—to choose a grantee. Unlike the earlier guidelines, the  selection committee was to (1) choose a single grantee to act as fiscal  agent for the PSN strategy and (2) determine what portions of the PSN  strategy should be funded and to whom after the grant proposal had been  approved by BJA. BJA’s guidelines for both fiscal years also included  hyperlinks to guidance EOUSA had issued for U.S. Attorneys and their  staff earlier in the year. EOUSA’s guidelines were similar to the Attorney  General’s guidelines, but they focused specifically on numerous ethics and  legal issues they need to consider in relation to their involvement with the  PSN Program. For example, similar to the Attorney General’s guidelines  discussed earlier, U.S. Attorneys are expected to express their views if  there is any reason why a particular applicant is an inappropriate  candidate for PSN funds, but they are prohibited from appearing before  the Office of Justice Programs on behalf of an applicant seeking grant  monies associated with PSN.
section_title: Weed and Seed Grants
paragraphs: In December 2002, EOUSA also issued guidance that outlined the roles  and responsibilities of U.S. Attorney’s and their staff regarding the Weed  and Seed Program. Similar to the Attorney General’s and EOUSA’s PSN  ethics guidelines, EOUSA’s Weed and Seed guidance covered topics  ranging from working with nonprofit organizations to prohibitions against  fundraising and listed what activities U.S. Attorneys and their staff can  perform in support of the Weed and Seed Program. In regard to grants, the  guidance stated that U.S. Attorneys and their staff may, among other  things    serve as that chair or co-chair of the Weed and Seed Steering    certify to the Executive Office for Weed and Seed (EOWS) via a “letter  of intent” that a potential Weed and Seed site can receive “official  recognition;” that is the site has developed a strategy sufficient to make  them eligible to apply for a Weed and Seed grant; review Official Recognition applications and prepare a cover letter for  submission to EOWS supporting the site and its strategy;  review funding applications to ensure technical accuracy and  consistency with the Weed and Seed strategy;   sign a statement of support for the Weed and Seed strategy; and    supervise the site, as chair or co-chair of the steering committee,  throughout the life of the initiative.
The Weed and Seed guidelines also instructed U.S. Attorneys that, among  other things, they may not become advocates for individual grant  applicants; communicate with or appear before any federal agency on  behalf of a nonprofit organization; or draft grant proposals or applications.  Furthermore, U.S. Attorneys were told that they are authorized to assist  EOWS in monitoring the performance of the project under the grant to  ensure federal grant dollars are not misused, but they are not to act on  EOWS’ behalf. The guidelines stated that U.S. Attorneys are to inform  EOWS of site implementation problems or irregularities to enable EOWS  to take appropriate action.