Justice Grant Programs: DOJ Should Do More to Reduce the Risk of Unnecessary Duplication and Enhance Program Assessment
Released: 2012-07-12T00:00:00

Letter

Background

DOJ awards federal financial assistance to state and local governments, for-profit and nonprofit organizations, tribal jurisdictions, and educational institutions to help prevent crime, assist victims of crime, and promote innovative law enforcement efforts. Federal financial assistance can take the form of discretionary grants, formula grants, cooperative agreements, and payment programs, which all are generally referred to as grants. Grant programs are generally created by statute and funded through annual appropriations. As such, Congress has a central role in determining the scope and nature of federal financial assistance programs. In addition, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) establishes general guidance which governs administration of all such federal financial assistance and DOJ has flexibility in how to administer assistance that is discretionary in nature.

In fiscal year 2010, DOJ provided direct grant funding to nearly 11,000 grantees.assistance.

DOJ Grant Programs Overlap, Contributing to the Risk of Unnecessarily Duplicative Grant Awards for the Same or Similar Purposes

DOJ’s Grant Solicitations Overlap across 10 Key Justice Areas

We reviewed all 253 of the fiscal year 2010 grant solicitations that OJP, OVW, and the COPS Office published on their respective websites and found overlap across 10 justice areas—as table 2 illustrates. These solicitations announced funding available to grantees for criminal and juvenile justice activities, including direct assistance for crime victims and the hiring of police officers. These solicitations also announced funding available for grantees to collect criminal justice data, conduct research, or provide related training and technical assistance. We developed these 10 categories of justice areas after reviewing comparable justice areas identified within OJP’s CrimeSolutions.gov website, which OJP officials stated covers a variety of justice topics, including some topic areas that OVW and the COPS Office fund; OJP’s Fiscal Year 2010 Program Plan; and other materials from OVW and the COPS Office, such as justice program themes from their respective websites. Within the justice areas, a variety of activities—including research, direct service provision, or technical assistance—can be conducted. We examined the purpose areas of the 253 grant solicitations and then categorized them by justice area.

In conducting this analysis, we recognize that overlapping grant programs across common programmatic areas result in part from authorizing statutes, and that overlap itself may not be problematic. However, the existence of overlapping grant programs is an indication that agencies should increase their visibility of where their funds are going and coordinate to ensure that any resulting duplication in grant award funding is purposeful rather than unnecessary. Overlap and the associated risk of unnecessary duplication occur throughout the government, as we have reported previously, and are not isolated to DOJ. However, when coupled with consistent programmatic coordination, the risk of unnecessary duplication can be diminished.

As table 2 illustrates, we found overlap across the various DOJ grant programs. For example, 56 of DOJ’s 253 grant solicitations—or more than 20 percent—were providing grant funds available for activities related to victim assistance or to support the research and prevention of violence against women. Eighteen of these 56 programs were administered by offices other than OVW and OJP’s Office for Victims of Crime. In addition, more than 50 percent of all grant solicitations provided funding that could be used in support of the same three justice areas—victim assistance, technology and forensics, and juvenile justice— indicating concentrated and overlapping efforts. The justice area with the least overlap was juvenile justice, with 30 of 33 grant programs administered by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

There are some instances in which overlap occurs because of the statute that established programs. Further, we recognize that overlap among DOJ’s grant programs may be desirable because such overlap can enable DOJ’s granting agencies to leverage multiple funding streams to serve a single justice purpose. However, coordination across the administering granting agencies is critical for such leveraging to occur. In the section below, we discuss the ways in which overlapping grant programs increase the risk of unnecessarily duplicative grant awards for the same or similar purposes. In subsequent sections, we discuss the steps DOJ has taken to enhance coordination and some ways in which DOJ’s efforts can be improved.

In Some Instances, DOJ Awarded Grant Funding from Overlapping Programs to the Same Applicants for the Same or Similar Purposes

We found that in some instances, DOJ’s granting agencies awarded multiple grants to the same grantees for the same or similar purposes. Applicants can apply directly to DOJ for funding through a variety of grant programs that DOJ announces annually. Recipients of such grant awards are referred to as prime grantees. Since many of DOJ’s grant programs allow prime grantees to award subgrants, applicants also can apply directly to a prime grantee for award funding. As a result, prime grantees receiving money from DOJ through one funding stream also can be subgrantees receiving money from a prime grantee through another funding stream. If an applicant, either as a prime grantee or as a subgrantee, receives multiple grant awards from overlapping programs, the risk of unnecessary duplication increases since the applicant may receive funding from more than one source for the same or similar purpose without DOJ being aware that this situation exists. Such duplication may be unnecessary if, for example, the total funding received exceeds the applicant’s need, or if neither granting agency was aware of the original funding decision.

After reviewing a sample of 26 grant applications from recipients who received funds from grant programs we identified as having similar purpose areas, we found instances where applicants used the same or similar language to apply for multiple streams of funding. For example, one grant recipient applied for funding to reduce child endangerment through cyber investigations from both the COPS Office’s Child Sexual and OJP’s Internet Crimes Against Children Predator (CSPP) Program(ICAC) program. In both of these applications, the applicant stated that it planned to use the grants to increase the number of investigations in the state, provide training for cyber crime investigations, serve as a forensic resource for the state, and establish an Internet safety program. Further, included in this applicant’s proposed budgets for both funding streams were plans to purchase equipment, such as forensic computers and the same specialized software to investigate Internet crimes against children. Another grant recipient from a different jurisdiction also applied for funding from OJP and the COPS Office programs to support the same types of investigations. In a third instance, an applicant received fiscal year 2010 grant funding for planned sexual assault victim services from both OJP’s Office for Victims of Crime and OVW. The applicant used similar language in both applications, noting that it intended to use the funding to support child victim services through its child advocacy center.

After we shared these examples with DOJ, DOJ officials followed up with the grant recipients involved and reported to us that the grantees were not using awarded funds for duplicative purposes—which DOJ defines as grantees using funds to pay for the exact same item. However, such follow-up for the purpose of assessing duplication is not a routine practice for DOJ. Further, DOJ’s narrow definition of duplication curtails it from assessing the use of funds for the same or a similar overall purpose on a grant project.

In fiscal year 2010, DOJ’s three granting agencies awarded nearly 11,000 prime grant awards, but officials told us that they do not consider the flow of grant funds to subgrantees when making grant award decisions. Because DOJ does not have visibility of the flow of funds to these recipients, agency officials were not positioned to tell us what activities, or for what purposes, the subgrantees were spending their federal funds. Thus, to obtain more information, we surveyed JAG SAAs, who are responsible for managing the subgrants they make, to obtain information related to the purpose areas of their funding.

In our survey, we asked the JAG SAAs if they or their subgrantees used grant funding in fiscal year 2010 for key justice areas such as funding sex offender registry notification systems; correctional officer salaries, and sexual assault services; purchasing bullet-resistant vests; and hiring police officers. DOJ supports all of these areas through JAG, as well as through targeted grant programs specifically addressing each of these topics. On the basis of survey responses, we found several instances where SAAs reported that JAG funds were used to support activities that could have been funded through other DOJ grants. For instance, 11 of 50 responding SAAs, or 22 percent, reported that they or their subgrantees used JAG funding to support correctional officer salaries. Further, 23 of the 50 SAAs, or nearly 50 percent, reported that they or their subgrantees used JAG funding to hire police officers, even though a separate DOJ program dedicates funding exclusively to hiring law enforcement personnel.

The COPS Office hiring grant awarded to this county was for fiscal year 2009. COPS Office hiring grants last up to 3 years, and the county used the grant in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 as well. These grants support the hiring or the rehiring of career law enforcement officers to increase community policing and crime prevention strategies. received funding for drug court–assisted substance abuse treatment and mental health counseling through both a JAG program subaward and a grant directly from OJP’s Adult Drug Court Grant Program. Officials from one of these counties informed us that they received so much DOJ funding from the two grant programs that it exceeded the county’s need and they planned to return a portion to DOJ.

The IG has previously identified the risk of OJP and the COPS Office funding duplicative grant awards. For example, in 2003, the IG identified duplication between the COPS Office Hiring Program and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program, the predecessor to the JAG grant program. The IG reported that while the COPS Hiring Grant program is required to advance community policing, the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program grants are sometimes used for the same or similar purposes. According to the IG, in such cases the grants are duplicative. In 2010, the IG reported that it had identified potential overlap between the COPS Office Hiring Recovery Program and OJP’s JAG Formula Program and Edward Byrne Competitive Grant Program. As a result, the IG recommended that the COPS Office work with OJP to avoid duplication of future funding by coordinating closely on grantee selection decisions, as discussed later in this report.

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, Audit Division, Streamlining of Administrative Activities and Federal Financial Assistance Functions in the Office of Justice Programs and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Audit Report 03-27 (Washington D.C.: Aug. 2003).

DOJ Has Taken Actions That Address Overlap in Grant Programs but Could Further Reduce the Risk of Unnecessary Duplication in Grant Funding

DOJ Has Taken Some Action to Consolidate and Coordinate Similar Grant Programs

According to DOJ officials, the statutory creation of grant programs with similar purposes requires grant design coordination within and among DOJ’s granting agencies to limit the risk of unnecessary duplication from overlapping programs. The primary purpose of consolidation or coordination may not be to limit this risk, but officials reported that reducing the risk may be a secondary benefit. Officials from all three granting agencies stated that they meet with one another to coordinate the goals and objectives of their grant programs, especially joint grant programs that they believe are complementary. For example, the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Office for Victims of Crime issued a joint solicitation for anti-human trafficking programs where each office issued separate awards based on coordinated proposals from collaborating police departments and community-based victim service organizations. Further, according to officials, DOJ recently launched the Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation to provide a single application for most of DOJ’s tribal grant programs.

Consolidating two programs with similar purposes into one, with unified management, is the most comprehensive way to reduce overlap, according to DOJ officials. However, they stated that the statutory creation of grant programs with similar purposes can create administrative challenges because in many cases, DOJ must seek statutory authorization to discontinue or consolidate enacted programs that DOJ believes may be overlapping. Officials told us they have sought congressional action in a few instances for these purposes and will continue to do so, but because the process is complex, they have also taken administrative steps on an ad hoc basis to mitigate overlap of purpose areas as illustrated in table 3.

Officials stated that they meet with one another when they determine it is needed to coordinate the goals and objectives of their grant programs, especially those programs that they believe are complementary. In addition, an OJP official told us that in 2010 the office prioritized coordination as 1 of its 10 management goals and cited benefits that resulted from this focus, including reduced administrative costs, fewer grant solicitations, and a reduced number of competitive grant peer reviews. However, these officials told us that these coordination and consolidation efforts, as well as those illustrated in table 3, do not occur routinely.

DOJ Has Not Assessed Its Grant Programs to Identify and Reduce Overlap

Even with efforts to coordinate its programs, DOJ officials told us they have not conducted a formal assessment or study of their grant programs to determine if and to what extent they overlap and where opportunities exist to more consistently pursue consolidation or better coordinate grant programs. Further, we found that coordination among granting agencies occurred on an ad hoc basis and that without an assessment of its overlapping programs, DOJ was not well positioned to identify and describe areas of potential for unnecessary duplication across its grant programs.

A senior OJP official told us that the department had not formally assessed or studied its grant programs to determine the extent of overlap because of the significant investment of time and staff resources that it would require. DOJ officials emphasized that since these programs were statutorily established as distinct programs, they are not certain that any attempt at harmonization—beyond what they have already done—would be viable. For example, they said that in some cases, statutes creating what may appear to be similar programs also create very different eligibility criteria for grant applicants. Thus, the officials stated, some programs may not be easily merged through administrative efforts such as announcing similar grant programs in a single solicitation. We agree that similar grant programs may have unique features that could render grant consolidation or coordination impractical, but DOJ has not taken the steps to catalogue all of its programs across each of the three granting agencies, and then determine which have the potential to be consolidated or coordinated and what barriers might exist to achieve such changes.

The IG continues to include DOJ’s grants management among its list of top challenges affecting the department, and in previous reports, has identified fragmentation and duplication among DOJ’s granting agencies as an area of concern. Further, developing agency procedures to avoid grant duplication is one of the promising practices that the federal Domestic Working Group Grant Accountability Project suggested in its Given the Guide to Opportunities for Improving Grant Accountability.specific knowledge of these grant programs’ statutory authorities, their histories of funding certain types of activities, and the nuances related to their administration, officials within OJP, OVW, and the COPS Office are uniquely positioned to assess their programs for overlap. Doing so could yield positive dividends for the granting agencies and the department over the longer term. Specifically, such assessments could include understanding the areas in which individual granting agencies may be awarding funds for the same or similar purposes, determining whether these grant programs appropriately channel the department’s resources across the justice areas it funds, and determining whether any existing overlap is desirable. By conducting an assessment of its grant programs of this kind, DOJ would be better positioned to take action, such as through consolidation and coordination of its programs, in a more systematic way to limit overlap and mitigate the risk of unnecessary duplication.

DOJ’s Granting Agencies Do Not Have Policies and Procedures to Ensure Coordination to Limit the Risk of Unnecessary Duplication

OJP, OVW, and the COPS Office do not routinely share lists of current and potential awardees to consider both the current and planned dispersion and purposes of all DOJ grant funding before finalizing new award decisions. Not having routine coordination in the pre-award phase limits each of DOJ’s granting agencies’ visibility of the funds each respectively awards rather than to the overall flow of department dollars. Thus, in the instances where DOJ made multiple grant awards to applicants for the same or similar purposes, officials made these awards without always being aware of the potential for unnecessary duplication or whether funding from multiple streams was warranted. DOJ officials stated that their annual process to formulate budgets for grant administration, OJP’s annual planning process to develop solicitations, and the department’s overall grant oversight functions address the risks of unnecessary duplication in grant awards. However, these activities do not specifically relate to the pre-award phase when any potential for unnecessary duplication can best be avoided. DOJ officials also stated that they meet bi-monthly to discuss grantees on DOJ’s High Risk List to avoid funding grantees who in the past have demonstrated deficiencies in However, the purpose of these properly managing their federal awards.discussions is not to prevent or reduce duplication. Developing agency policies and procedures to avoid unnecessary grant duplication in the awarding of funds is one of the promising practices that the federal Domestic Working Group Grant Accountability Project suggested in its Guide to Opportunities for Improving Grant Accountability.

As a result of our work, OJP officials informed us that as of March 2012, they had begun to pilot solicitation language in two of its grant programs requiring grant applicants to disclose any pending applications submitted in the last 12 months for other federally funded assistance to support the same costs associated with the same projects outlined in applicants’ budgets. Additionally, officials stated they are currently developing a grant special condition for all fiscal year 2012 grant awards that would require grantees to report to OJP if they receive any funding for a specific project cost that is duplicative of the funding OJP provides. OJP officials told us that if grantees report duplicative funding for a specific project cost, OJP staff will work with the grantees to ensure return of the OJP funds. We believe this requirement will improve OJP’s ability to limit the risks of duplicative funding for single items; however, OJP continues to take a more narrow view of the term “duplication.” OJP defines duplicative funding to include only instances where grantees are using federal money for the same exact item. In doing so, OJP excludes from its purview all federal funding that grant applicants have been awarded to carry out the same or similar activities within a proposed project. Thus, in making funding decisions without asking for information about and considering other sources of an applicant’s federal funding to carry out the same or similar activities, OJP may be awarding funds for proposed projects that are already partially or fully funded. It may also be doing so at the expense of other applicants who, in the absence of other funding sources, may demonstrate to OJP greater financial need for their proposals. Further, DOJ’s new approach—while an important step—relies solely on grantee reporting. By independently assessing its own lists of actual and prospective grantees prior to awarding funds, DOJ could have additional assurance that it is taking actions to mitigate the risk of unnecessary duplication.

In addition, OVW officials stated that for fiscal year 2013, they intend to require those applying to four of its grant programs to identify in their grant applications all federal funding that they recently applied for or have received. By enhancing visibility over various sources of grant funding, OVW would be better positioned to avoid unnecessary duplication in awarding grants for these four programs. It could also provide OVW with opportunities to best leverage OVW funding in a manner that complements other funding streams the applicant already has available or may soon receive. For example, if an applicant reports to OVW that it already receives money through a non-OVW grant to provide counseling services to victims, OVW can ensure that OVW funds are available for other project-related activities such as providing training to counselors who serve victims. However, beyond what OJP is piloting and what OVW has proposed for four of its programs, DOJ generally does not require grant applicants to identify other funding that they have received or any pending funding yet to be awarded, including funding received through a subgrant. Further, while the COPS Office’s grants management system automatically includes information on other COPS Office funding a COPS Office applicant may already be receiving, it does not identify other DOJ grant funding or any other federal funding sources. As a result, DOJ’s three granting agencies could take additional steps to increase their visibility over what applicants may already be receiving before awarding new funds.

OJP, OVW, and the COPS Office have not established policies and procedures requiring consistent coordination and information sharing among its granting agencies. Having such policies and procedures would provide guidance to DOJ granting agencies to help ensure they take action to mitigate the risks of unnecessary duplication before finalizing award decisions. By routinely coordinating to ensure the sharing of grant applications and potential grant awards among DOJ granting agencies prior to finalizing grant award decisions and documenting its methods for doing so, DOJ could also improve its oversight and better leverage information already at its disposal.

The IG recommended in August 2003 that OJP and the COPS Office establish procedures to coordinate to ensure that grantees do not receive funds for the same purpose from both agencies.the COPS Office signed a memorandum of understanding to establish procedures for avoiding duplication by coordinating grants and grant programs that were identified by the IG and grant programs where the In response, OJP and potential for duplication exists. Further, the agencies committed to reviewing any new guidance affecting grants or grant programs where the potential for duplication exists. Specifically, for grants and grant programs identified as having potential for duplication, OJP and the COPS Office agreed to minimize potential duplicative grant awards in a manner consistent with statutory provisions, and include a grant award special condition requiring that grantees not use OJP and COPS Office grant funds to pay for the same expenses. During the course of our audit work, we asked COPS Office and OJP officials for examples of the type of coordination they have been engaging in since the IG’s recommendations. Officials provided evidence from fiscal year 2009, when they coordinated funding decisions with OJP prior to awarding grants for two similar grant programs funded under the Recovery Act.

However, in some cases, granting agencies continue to provide funding for the same or similar purposes without each being aware of the others’ actions. Further, we examined grant special conditions for the COPS Office CSP program and OJP’s ICAC grant program and neither agency included special conditions in the grant awards requiring grantees to identify and report duplication. However, the 2010 COPS Child Sexual Predator Program Grant Owner’s Manual did include a requirement that grantees inform the COPS Office if they receive other funding for the same cost or service already funded by the COPS Office while their grant is underway. The Grant Manager’s Manual used by OJP lists grant award special conditions, and except for the duplication condition that specifically applies to CTAS, there were no other grant duplication special conditions listed.

Officials from OJP and the COPS Office told us that state and local communities have expansive criminal justice needs and therefore they encourage applicants to seek out as much DOJ grant funding as possible, including from grant programs that may have similar objectives or allow for similar activities. In some instances, DOJ may deem it appropriate for distinct grant programs to serve the same goal, or for one community or grantee to benefit from multiple streams of grant funding. For example, if DOJ granting officials are coordinating their activities across overlapping grant programs and are aware that a grantee is receiving funds from more than one DOJ program, making funding decisions of this kind may be warranted. However, DOJ’s granting agencies are not routinely engaging in such coordination. Unless DOJ improves granting agencies’ coordination, and considers information available on current, past, and prospective funding, it cannot know where all of its funding goes, how it is being or will be used, and whether it is awarding grant dollars in the most efficient way possible. Further, if the granting agencies are not aware of which recipients are receiving funds from multiple grants, they may be inadvertently awarding multiple grants that exceed the demonstrated need of a recipient or community at the expense of another applicant or community with similar demonstrated needs. In addition, they may be missing opportunities to award grants to recipients who may use funding in a complementary way, whereby funding may be leveraged by a grantee or a community to accomplish a single goal. With the exception of OVW’s plan to have four grant program recipients identify all federal funding they receive and OJP’s solicitation pilot and plan to have applicants identify duplicative cost items, DOJ does not have policies and procedures that require grant applicants to identify all sources of current or pending DOJ funding in their grant applications in a manner that provides DOJ a complete picture of DOJ grant project funding. If DOJ had (1) a coordinated approach to share applicants’ funding intentions, and (2) policies and procedures to share lists of applicants that each granting agency plans to fund, DOJ could improve its understanding in the pre- award phase as to whether its funding would complement or unnecessarily duplicate other federal funding.

DOJ officials told us that the timeline for reviewing applications, making recommendations, and processing awards each year is compressed and that it would be difficult to build in the extra time and level of coordination required to complete an intradepartmental review for potentially unnecessary duplication of funding prior to making awards. The officials added that it would take even more time if granting agencies were to attempt a pre-award duplication review at the subgrantee level. Thus, officials told us that they rely upon post-award activities through grant monitoring, Single Grant Audits, and IG audits to determine if duplicative expenses have occurred after grants are under way. However, relying upon monitoring and external audits to identify duplication after it has occurred should not substitute for the mitigation of potential unnecessary duplication in the pre-award phase. We acknowledge that the time necessary to complete annual grant awards makes such a review process more difficult; however, actions to make coordination more consistent and efficient as well as the leveraging of grant award information, including subgrants, could help overcome this challenge. Moreover, using tools such as existing grant data available on USASpending.gov, which we address later in this report, could aid DOJ in validating other grant funding that grant applicants report and allow for an expedient way to search for subgrant funding. In addition, DOJ could limit its pre-award coordination to those grant programs that DOJ identifies as overlapping with other DOJ grant programs. For certain grant programs, OJP and OVW have taken important first steps to require grant applicants to report other sources of funding, but expanding this requirement to all grant programs across all granting agencies, such that every applicant would report both past and prospective sources of DOJ grant funding, could provide broader coverage and help DOJ better mitigate the risk of unnecessary duplication.

DOJ Uses Separate Grant Management Systems, a Fact That Limits Award Coordination

While OJP and OVW use a single grants management system called GMS, the COPS Office uses a separate grants management system— CMS—which limits the sharing of grant award information across the granting agencies. Specifically, OJP, OVW, and the COPS Office use GMS and CMS to track and manage awards throughout the grant life cycle. For example, agency grant staff in OJP, OVW, and the COPS Office use their grant management systems to review and approve applications and to plan and document grant monitoring activities. Grantees use the grant management systems to submit financial status reports that include summary information on grant expenditures and program income as well as progress or performance reports. DOJ has spent about $36 million from 2008 through 2010 to maintain and upgrade these two separate grants management systems, including about $8 million for CMS and $28 million for GMS.

DOJ’s continued use of two systems to manage grant programs impedes coordination because GMS and CMS are not linked with each other, and the agencies’ access is limited to the grants management systems they utilize. OJP and OVW can access information through GMS about grants awarded by each other, but they cannot access CMS to see the grantees that have received COPS Office funds. As a result, these granting agencies cannot use these grants management systems to inform themselves of all of the funding DOJ has awarded or is preparing to award to a recipient and consider this information before making additional awards. According to an OJP official, over the long term, it would be helpful if GMS could connect to CMS. Pursuant to the statute establishing OAAM—the office overseeing programmatic grant monitoring and assessment across OJP and COPS Office programs—the Director of OAAM was required to establish and maintain a modern, automated system for managing all information relating to grants made under programs within its purview. grant management systems in the department.

See 42 U.S.C. § 3712h(g) (providing that the OAAM Director shall establish and maintain such a system in consultation with the chief information officer of the office). and monitoring, such as through remote access to CMS. The IG concluded that oversight agencies should have direct, instant, and complete access to grant information, which is not provided using the current system, which relies on hard copies of documents. In response, COPS Office officials reported that they would provide OJP with real-time hard copy reports necessary to carry out oversight work and that CMS could be accessed only by employees using remote access to the COPS Office or through a COPS Office laptop.

DOJ contractors completed a gap analysis of CMS and GMS in 2006 to outline the differences—or gaps—between the two systems and propose solutions for reconciling them. At the time, the contractor found key gaps between the two systems related to business processes—in particular, programmatic grant monitoring, financial monitoring, and progress- reporting capabilities. Thus, the contractor recommended either building a new single grants system or maintaining the status quo because in the analysis, business process differences between OJP and the COPS Office were reportedly obstacles that made using either one of the two grants systems for both agencies untenable. Since 2007, OJP has upgraded GMS, which has closed some of the system gaps that the contractor initially identified, but the two systems remain distinct and unlinked.

According to COPS Office officials, CMS continues to better meet their needs than GMS could because CMS captures and stores data in such a way that it can be more easily queried than data in GMS and CMS uniquely aligns with COPS Office grant processes. This is helpful to the officials when the COPS Office is evaluating grant applications for its largest program, the COPS Hiring Program. Rather than evaluating qualitative grant project narratives through external peer review, the COPS Office considers quantitative data related to applicant fiscal distress, reported crime statistics, and community policing strategies when determining where to award COPS Hiring Program grants. Because COPS Hiring Program grant applicants use CMS to upload their data, COPS officials are positioned to use CMS for automated aggregation and analysis of applicant responses.

In contrast, OJP officials said that because of recent upgrades, GMS could be used or modified in order to query individual searchable elements. They also stated that variation in the information required by individual grant programs would not present an insurmountable barrier to unifying systems. In addition, GMS has served multiple agencies in the past and can be modified when circumstances warrant. For example, in 2010 and 2011, COPS Office officials successfully used GMS for awarding purposes under CTAS. According to OJP officials, the initial coordination with the COPS Office for CTAS purposes required additional modifications to GMS, but these were not onerous or costly. The officials said that with relative ease, after the modifications, OJP, OVW, and COPS Office grant managers all accessed GMS to perform some of the phases of the CTAS grant process. For example, GMS supports the management of CTAS by storing all applications, managing peer review comments, and registering awards once decisions are final. Besides OVW’s use of GMS to award and manage its grants, the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) also uses GMS to award and manage grants, though it has future Further, OJP officials stated that plans to use a DHS grants system.GMS has a current storage capacity well in excess of what it currently uses. They also emphasized that OVW and FEMA have grant business processes that do not completely align with OJP’s, but with small investments, OJP has been able to adjust GMS to accommodate OVW and FEMA.

In June 2012, DOJ officials informed us they had engaged a contractor to assess whether a single grants management system, among a range of other options, can best serve DOJ’s granting agencies. They plan for the contractor to report back within 6 months of beginning the analysis and said that they envision the assessment including an evaluation of costs, benefits, and technical requirements, such as those needed to harmonize business processes. Engaging a contractor for this purpose is an important first step, and doing so could help DOJ make better investment decisions about the most efficient way to manage its grants systems, especially when it considers the costs and benefits of having fragmented grants systems. In the interim, however, DOJ could take a more immediate solution to foster information sharing across GMS and CMS by providing system access to appropriate OJP, OVW, and COPS Office staff—for example, through common login names and passwords, just as department staff have done in limited instances such as the CTAS Program.

DOJ Does Not Timely Submit Grant Data to USASpending.gov and Is Not Fully Leveraging the Website’s Subgrant Award Information before Making Grant Award Decisions

DOJ’s granting agencies are not submitting grant award information to USASpending.gov in a timely way. In accordance with the Federal Funding and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA), USASpending.gov was created to increase the transparency and accountability for federal funding awarded through contracts, loans, grants, and other awards. OMB issued guidance on reporting the receipt and use of federal funds. OMB also launched USASpending.gov in December 2007 to allow the public to view federal spending and engaged the General Services Administration (GSA) to build and maintain USASpending.gov, among other FFATA-related websites.guidelines for agencies related to the requirement for prime grantees to report all subgrants over $25,000 in fiscal year 2011. The USASpending.gov website includes the subgrantees’ names, geographical locations of funded activities, specific subgrant amounts, and the funded purposes. A GSA official told us that the FFATA reporting infrastructure is the first time that comprehensive federal grant and subgrant information, including DOJ grant information, has been made widely available on a single website. Through the steps that granting agencies, as well as the grantees, take to supply this website’s content, the public and DOJ’s granting agencies can better track the flow of funds and identify communities receiving funds from multiple streams.

In August 2010, OMB established OMB’s FFATA guidance requires agencies to submit grant award data by the 5th of each month. USASpending.gov contains validation software used to validate agency data submissions, and if data are rejected, agencies receive automated notification. OMB guidance then requires agencies to resubmit the corrected data to USASpending.gov within 5 working days of the rejection notification. OJP manages submissions to USASpending.gov for all of DOJ—that is for OJP, OVW, and the COPS Office—and an OJP official reported that DOJ submits grant award information to USASpending.gov twice per month. However, more than a quarter of the grant award information that DOJ submitted to USASpending.gov in fiscal year 2011 was rejected and resubmission took Figure 3 illustrates the more than 80 days after the fiscal year ended.flow of grant award information from both DOJ and grantees and some issues we identified related to DOJ’s fiscal year 2011 reporting.

Agency reporting of prime grant award information in USASpending.gov is a critical step in the FFATA reporting process because prime grantees cannot upload their subgrant award information until it occurs. For fiscal year 2011, DOJ submitted 4,346 distinct prime grant award records to USASpending.gov; however, GSA rejected 1,152 of these because of incomplete or inaccurate data associated with some of these grant files, and DOJ did not resubmit the records within 5 working days as required under OMB guidance. Specifically, DOJ did not correct and resubmit the rejected records until December 22, 2011, which was after we raised this issue with DOJ and 83 days after the end of the fiscal year. Five out of 11 DOJ prime grantees we interviewed who had awarded subgrants indicated that, after searching, they could not view their prime DOJ grant awards on FSRS.gov or USASpending.gov and indicated that DOJ had not uploaded the information to the websites. Further, another prime grantee among the 11 with whom we spoke indicated that it was unaware that subgrant reporting was a requirement. As a result, these prime grantees were unable to submit their subgrant award information and thus were unable to comply with OMB subgrant reporting requirements. DOJ has taken action to help ensure that prime grantees and DOJ grants staff are aware of FFATA reporting requirements. For example, OJP offered FFATA reporting training for all DOJ grants staff and grantees, and all three granting agencies required a special condition in grant awards that included FFATA reporting requirements. These steps may have informed grantees of their FFATA responsibilities, but DOJ’s untimely submission of grant award information to USASpending.gov led to prime grantees being unable to access their grant awards to submit their subgrant award information as required by OMB.

OJP officials stated that since 2007 they have been coordinating with OMB, other federal agencies, and contractors on issues related to reporting guidelines and other technical requirements related to subgrant reporting, but that it was not until August 2010 that OMB established guidelines for the collection and reporting of subgrant information. Nevertheless, OJP officials stated that the current allotment of 5 days for agencies to review and resubmit data that GSA originally rejected is an unreasonable time frame given the time-intensive nature of checking and correcting errors. Officials also noted that OJP would like to see GSA allow for the posting of individual records that pass system validation rather than waiting for entire blocks to be corrected at once before GSA will post award information to USASpending.gov. In addition, OJP officials indicated that the information prime grantees ultimately posted about their subgrantees was limited and in most cases very brief. As a result, the officials said they were not considering such information before making new awards.

We recognize that 5 days may not be adequate to correct errors in grant award information, but we also believe that timely submission of grant award information on USASpending.gov is key to transparency and the overall utility of the system for grant decision makers, the criminal justice community, Congress, and taxpayers. By DOJ ensuring that it submits its grant award information to USASpending.gov in as timely a manner as is possible, prime grantees’ abilities to report their subgrant activities would likely improve. As a result, DOJ could have greater visibility over which subgrantees were using its money and for what purposes before DOJ makes its grant award decisions. Further, even if DOJ does not believe that the information that prime grantees ultimately post about their subgrantees is ideally descriptive in every instance, the information could provide DOJ with important details—that it currently does not consider or otherwise have access to before finalizing award decisions—related to how subgrantees are using their funds.

DOJ Could Benefit from Examining Its Programmatic Grant Monitoring and Assessment Functions and Considering Expansion of OAAM’s Authorities

OAAM Uses Programmatic Grant Monitoring and Program Assessment for Grant Oversight, but Program Assessments Yield Richer Information

The statute establishing OAAM tasked the OAAM Director with selecting and carrying out program assessments of not less than 10 percent of the aggregate amount of grant funding awarded annually by OJP, the COPS Office, and any other grant programs carried out by DOJ that the Attorney OAAM officials told us that to meet the General considers appropriate.directive to conduct program assessments, and in recognition of its own resource constraints, OAAM relies on the programmatic grant monitoring that OJP’s and the COPS Office’s grant staff already conduct. To oversee and track these monitoring efforts, OAAM develops and implements standards and protocols, including a framework and methodology for OAAM also tracks OJP’s systematically identifying high-risk grantees.and the COPS Office’s monitoring progress and compares it against an established annual monitoring plan. For example, in its fiscal year 2010 annual report—the latest available—on both OJP and the COPS Office’s monitoring goals and activities, OAAM found that both offices exceeded their goals of monitoring 10 percent of total award funding. OJP monitored 1,447 grantees with awards totaling $3.05 billion, and the COPS Office monitored 185 grantees with awards totaling $234.74 million. In addition to overseeing monitoring activities, OAAM also conducts program assessments of OJP and COPS Office grant programs. OAAM considers monitoring—and its oversight of it—as responsive to its originating statute’s intent, but it also recognizes that assessments have utility and serve a separate but important function in helping the office improve grant management. Table 4 illustrates the distinction between OJP’s and the COPS Office’s monitoring and OAAM’s assessment functions.

In general, both monitoring and assessment are important and complementary tools for grant oversight. Nevertheless, we found that OAAM’s program assessments yield richer information to enhance grant programs than either OJP’s or the COPS Office’s individual monitoring reports or the summary reports that OAAM’s Program Assessment Division (PAD) compiles because the program assessments are more analytical and broader in perspective. OAAM’s PAD Standard Operating Procedures define a program assessment as “a systematic review and evaluation of programs to gauge effectiveness, identify promising practices, document impediments, and when necessary, make recommendations for improvement.” OAAM reported to us that from 2008 through mid-February, 2012, its staff had produced 28 products; however, when we reviewed the 28, we found that 7 met OAAM’s definition for a program assessment.assessment report on the COPS Office Methamphetamine Initiative. In 2011, it completed one on BJA payment programs, and in 2010, it assessed the ICAC Training and Technical Assistance Program. The other 21 publications were user guides; summaries of monitoring reports, such as those described earlier; or Recovery Act risk indicator reports, which identify potentially high-risk grantees so that the program offices can work with those grantees to resolve issues and prevent potential problems. According to OJP, all of OAAM’s publications contribute to improving OJP’s grant programs and operations by strengthening internal controls, streamlining processes to be more efficient, or reporting on how well programs and policies are meeting their objectives.

For example, in 2012, OAAM completed an Of the 7 publications meeting OAAM’s definition for program assessments, 2 reviewed a single aspect of the grant cycle—program awarding—within a particular grant program rather than the grant program overall.thorough review of the extent to which a grant program is meeting its intended purpose. Moreover, each recommended specific actions to address identified program deficiencies, and implementation of these recommendations has helped DOJ enhance its grant programs. For example, the 2010 ICAC assessment report contained 11 recommendations related to the collection and use of performance measurement data, financial management, fair and open competition for awards, and improving grant management and oversight. In our review of the six monitoring reports that the ICAC grant manager completed for the ICAC program’s sole grantee, there was no mention of the same deficiencies. In particular, none of the six monitoring reports identified the unallowable costs, conflict of interest, or inadequate oversight and documentation of grant activity that the OAAM assessment report identified. Instead, the monitoring reports showed that the grantee was progressing as expected on implementation of the program, and was on schedule with no problems noted.

Nevertheless, all 7 were based on a much more OAAM also assessed BJA’s payment programs, which otherwise are not subject to BJA grant monitoring. In the November 2011 report, OAAM assessed the processes that BJA used to verify the eligibility and accuracy of reimbursement requests submitted by grantees. The assessment concluded that BJA is administering its payment programs appropriately to verify the eligibility and accuracy of payments, but it also determined that additional internal controls were necessary and that procedures were not sufficient to identify duplicate payment requests from grantees. As a result of the assessment, OAAM made six recommendations to BJA, including implementing additional procedures to identify duplicate requests for payments of detention expenses. In particular, one of OAAM’s recommendations was that BJA implement a process to identify overlapping requests for reimbursement between two of the programs for expenses related to detention of criminal aliens. In response, BJA compared all of those programs’ applications for reimbursement for fiscal year 2011 to identify whether jurisdictions were requesting reimbursement for the detention of the same individuals over the same period of time. BJA’s review led to the removal of approximately $5.8 million in requests for reimbursement prior to generating the final reimbursement awards.

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government calls for managers to compare actual performance with planned or expected results throughout the organization and analyze significant differences. These standards also identify that program managers need both operational and financial data to determine whether they are meeting their agencies’ strategic and annual performance plans and meeting their goals for accountability for effective and efficient use of resources. The programmatic grant monitoring reports that each of the granting agencies compile contribute to meeting these standards at the grantee level by tracking the progress and, when necessary, providing assistance to individual grant recipients. OAAM’s summaries of these reports then roll up the statistics and ensure the compliance monitoring occurs as required. However, OAAM’s program assessments are more comprehensive than both the individual grant monitoring reports and the summary reports OAAM prepares because their broader perspective allows for reporting on program successes, impediments, and potential areas for improvement. While monitoring 10 percent or more of the aggregate amount of grant funding awarded annually is important and beneficial to the grant management process, the 7 program assessment reports that OAAM has issued since 2008 have led to more than 50 recommendations for the improvement of OJP and COPS Office grant programs.

According to OAAM officials, additional program assessments would be beneficial; however, they told us that OAAM does not have sufficient resources to conduct more. They said that conducting program assessments on 10 percent of the aggregate amount of grant funds awarded annually would not be possible given current resources, but they also noted that the department has not conducted a feasibility analysis that considers the costs and benefits of having OAAM conduct assessments on a larger number of grant programs. Further, OJP officials stated that since the establishment of OAAM, the administration has never requested, and the department has not received, the full amount authorized for appropriation under OAAM’s governing statute. DOJ officials did not explain the rationale for the administration’s budget proposals and officials did not report any plans to increase OAAM’s resources. As of December 2011, out of a total of 49 staff (26 federal staff authorized by DOJ and 23 contractors) spread across OAAM’s three divisions, OAAM had 8 staff (5 federal staff authorized by DOJ and 3 contractors)—or less than 20 percent—in its PAD dedicated to performing program assessments in addition to overseeing OJP and COPS Office programmatic monitoring. OAAM also has 18 staff (10 federal staff authorized by DOJ and 8 contractors)—or more than 30 percent— working in its Audit and Review Division to coordinate IG, GAO, and Single Grant Audit resolutions, and to conduct A-123 reviews—activities that are not specifically addressed in OAAM’s authorizing statute. Appendix V contains further discussion of the different activities of OAAM’s three divisions. Because DOJ considers its resources to be limited, it is important that OAAM’s resources be used as efficiently as possible to maximize the investment in grant programs. Thus, given the different roles that grant monitoring and program assessment play in assessing the overall effectiveness of grant programs, considering whether it employs an appropriate mix of monitoring and program assessments could aid DOJ in awarding grant funds in the most efficient and effective way possible.

Not Including OVW in OAAM’s Oversight Has Resulted in Inconsistent Assessment of the Effectiveness of DOJ Grant Programs

Consistent with the 2000 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, the Attorney General submits a biennial report to Congress on the effectiveness of VAWA-funded grant programs. OVW uses the VAWA Measuring Effectiveness Initiative, conducted under a noncompetitive cooperative agreement with a university to develop and implement reporting tools, as the primary way it meets statutory requirements to report on the effectiveness of VAWA-funded programs. Staff from the university also provide data collection training to grantees to ensure that they use the forms and database properly, and then use the information collected to summarize grantee performance in semiannual summary data reports. The results of this initiative are summary data reports that university staff compile from the semiannual or annual progress reports that grantees submit to OVW. OVW then uses these summaries to meet biennial reporting requirements for its discretionary grant programs under VAWA and, for example, the Services, Training, Officers, Prosecutors (STOP) Violence Against Women Formula Grant Program (STOP Program). The STOP Program promotes a coordinated, multidisciplinary approach to improving the criminal justice system’s response to violent crimes against women and increasing the availability of victim services.

OVW’s biennial reports are composed of three main components: a literature review of research showing (where available) the effectiveness of grant-funded activities and (when such research is not available) information on promising or best practices in the field of victims services; a summary of performance measure data, such as the number of grant-funded staff, the number of people trained, and the number of victims/survivors seeking services that are served, partially served, and not served, as reported by the grantees to OVW through OJP’s GMS; and anecdotal evidence from grantees on the benefit of what they are able to do with grant funds.

The statute establishing OAAM did not give it oversight authority for OVW programs. Provisions in the authorizing statute, however, provide the Attorney General with discretion to expand OAAM’s scope beyond OJP and COPS Office programs, which the Attorney General has not undertaken. As a result, while OVW uses its data collection and analysis to report on grant program effectiveness, in accordance with the VAWA requirement, by providing information on activities carried out with grant funds and the number of persons served using those funds, it does not benefit from the monitoring oversight and grant program assessments that OAAM provides. Such assessments could provide OVW with more substantive information on its grant programs.

Table 5 contains a comparison of the analytical approaches that OVW uses when it reports to Congress on the effectiveness of its grant programs against those that OAAM uses in its program assessments. On the basis of a review of seven OVW reports and seven OAAM grant program assessment reports, we found that OVW’s reports contain less analysis than the OAAM reports do. Specifically, these OVW reports summarized performance measurement data rather than analyzed it. Further, these OVW reports did not address grant program operations and management. OAAM, in contrast, used more varied approaches to analyze grant programs, which provided information on both grant program performance and operations, identified areas for improvement, and resulted in specific recommendations to OJP’s bureaus and program offices, and the COPS Office.

Unlike the OAAM analysts who conduct assessments of OJP and COPS Office grant programs, the university staff responsible for the Measuring Effectiveness Initiative do not have access to grant program financial data or OVW grant monitoring reports. Additionally, university staff involved in the initiative do not conduct site visits to validate the data provided by grant recipients and the work they perform. Instead, OVW staff in each program area review the results of the biennial reports and the semiannual summary data reports compiled from grantee progress reports to identify priority areas where there is an unmet need. The OVW reports contain sections on “remaining areas of need” identified by grant recipients. However, the areas of need that OVW identified are based on comments grant recipients provided on gaps in service, rather than being based on an independent assessment that OVW conducted on the overall grant programs. Moreover, unlike the grant program assessments that OAAM conducts, beyond identifying areas of need, the biennial reports do not result in concrete recommendations for improving OVW’s grant programs. OVW officials told us that for the upcoming 2012 biennial report, they plan to focus more attention to the discussion of remaining areas of need.

According to OVW’s 2010 Biennial Report to Congress on the Effectiveness of Grant Programs Under the Violence Against Women Act, demonstrating the effectiveness of services provided by agencies funded under OVW presents a challenge for those charged with meeting the reporting mandate of VAWA 2000. An OVW official told us that it is difficult to discern between output and outcomes when dealing with the grant programs in OVW and that it is difficult to measure outcomes with service grant programs. For example, OVW might consider whether an abuse victim not only gets a protective order but also receives additional services. Additionally, according to OVW officials, it would be difficult to track how many victims received different types of services in multiple areas, because OVW service provider grantees only track the first instance in which a victim receives services and do not follow up on related services.

According to the federal Domestic Working Group Grant Accountability Project’s Guide to Opportunities for Improving Grant Accountability, agencies need a process for managing performance once grants are awarded, and the ability to assess grant results and use those results when awarding future grants. The Working Group identified engaging outside experts to assess program performance, inspecting projects after completion, and conducting evaluations to identify factors affecting results among its promising practices to improve program performance. These activities are not part of OVW’s current approach to program oversight.

OVW conducts its grant program monitoring as well as IG audit follow-up. Additionally, OVW has a Grant Assessment Tool (GAT)—designed by the same company that produced the GAT for OJP.conducts Single Audit follow-ups; manages the high-risk grantee list; and oversees DOJ’s combined programmatic and financial monitoring plan, which is the combined monitoring list of all the sites that OJP, OVW, and the COPS Office plan to visit for the year. In a March 2011 audit, the IG found that OVW and the COPS Office perform certain monitoring and oversight services that are duplicative of the services available through OJP and recommended that DOJ standardize the oversight services OAAM currently provided to OVW and the COPS Office to eliminate such duplication and provide uniformity in oversight among DOJ granting agencies. OAAM provides certain administrative services that facilitate grant program management, but DOJ officials told us the reason OAAM does not have oversight over OVW is because the Attorney General has not extended OAAM’s purview. OJP officials told us that they have not been provided the scope of work that OVW oversight may encompass and, as such, OAAM has not conducted any analyses using a workforce model to determine the staffing levels, associated resources, and other possible impacts (i.e., costs and benefits) of having OVW under its purview on OAAM operations.

OVW officials expressed concern that OAAM staff would not have any expertise in violence against women issues. However, OAAM currently has oversight over specialized bureaus and offices such as the Office for Victims of Crime and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking. Additionally, OVW officials stated that OAAM does not perform data collection and analysis activities, which are the primary activities of the Measuring Effectiveness Initiative. However, as a part of its assessments, OAAM has collected performance measures and conducted analysis. For example, in its assessment of the ICAC Training and Technical Assistance Program, OAAM collected and analyzed national performance metrics related to training. Given the nature of OAAM assessments, along with the other oversight services it provides to OJP and the COPS Office, the information resulting from OAAM assessments of OVW grant programs could better inform OVW about its grant programs and funding to assist with future program design and award decisions while also providing Congress with a more complete picture on the effectiveness of programs funded under VAWA. Accordingly, DOJ could benefit from assessing the feasibility, costs, and benefits of OAAM providing grant program assessments for OVW.

Conclusions

The statutory design of DOJ’s grant programs has contributed to overlap across a number of justice areas. We recognize that even when programs overlap, there may be meaningful differences in their eligibility criteria or objectives, or they may be providing similar types of services in different ways. We also recognize that a number of grant programs are formula- driven and therefore grantees’ eligibility is predetermined. However, because DOJ exercises independent judgment when making discretionary awards and therefore has full responsibility for how it conducts its pre-award reviews, it will be important for the department to maximize visibility over how grantees plan to spend the funds they receive from multiple funding streams. In some instances, DOJ may deem it appropriate for large numbers of distinct grant programs to serve one goal, or for the same communities to benefit from multiple streams of its grant funding. In these cases, duplication may be warranted. However, because we found routine coordination and consistent policies and procedures for sharing information across the granting agencies during DOJ’s pre-award phase limited, we do not believe DOJ knows with certainty if such duplication is always necessary.

DOJ’s three granting agencies have taken some steps to coordinate their grant-related activities and have sought congressional approval in some instances for grant program consolidation. Further, they have initiated other, limited actions to ensure that grantees report additional streams of funding. However, DOJ limits its view of duplication to instances where grant applicants apply for and receive multiple streams of funding, including DOJ funding, to support single costs associated with a single grant project. Using this definition, DOJ believes that any unnecessary duplication can be identified through monitoring grantees post-award. We take a broader view of duplication and consider it potentially unnecessary when DOJ is unaware that grantees have applied for and are receiving funding for potentially the very same or similar purposes. Therefore, we believe it is incumbent that DOJ take steps in the pre-award phase to make purposeful judgments about funding necessity before finalizing the awards. Doing so would help the department better mitigate this risk for potential, unnecessary duplication. Specifically, by conducting a broad examination of all DOJ grant programs to systematically identify justice areas for which funding overlaps, DOJ would have greater visibility over how its funding can be used and whether it is awarding grant dollars in the most efficient way possible. Further, developing and implementing policies and procedures to require granting agencies to routinely share and consider information each may have about past or prospective grantee funding could provide DOJ with more strategic visibility over its awarding decisions. In addition, requiring all grantees to report current or prospective federal funding sources when applying for DOJ grants could provide DOJ with more information to better target its limited financial resources before it finalizes new grant awards.

Additionally, by taking interim steps to expand access to the two distinct grant management systems—CMS and GMS—DOJ could better ensure that grant managers and decision makers can leverage all existing tools while a longer-term study to consider the feasibility, costs, and benefits of potential options for DOJ grant management systems is underway. Such options could include unifying the systems, creating a DOJ-wide system, or using off-the-shelf software to bridge information gaps. Related, DOJ can have greater confidence that any variation in how the granting agencies are currently managing their portfolios does not hinder any potential unification by ensuring that its planned study include an assessment of the steps needed to harmonize DOJ grant processes. Further, with additional steps to ensure that DOJ is submitting grant award information to USASpending.gov in the most timely manner possible, the department could facilitate prime grantees’ uploading of information on subgrantees’ use of funds and therefore make the website a more useful resource to DOJ’s own grant decision makers. Finally, recognizing the value of OAAM’s role, assessing whether the office relies on an appropriate mix of programmatic grant monitoring and program assessment—as well as considering expansion of OAAM’s coverage to include OVW—could improve the overall operation of grant programs departmentwide.

Recommendations for Executive Action

To ensure that DOJ can identify overlapping grant programs to either consolidate or coordinate similar programs, mitigate the risk of unnecessary grant award duplication in its programs, and enhance DOJ’s ability to gauge grant program effectiveness, we recommend that the Attorney General take the following eight actions: 1. Conduct an assessment to better understand the extent to which the department’s grant programs overlap with one another and determine if grant programs may be consolidated to mitigate the risk of unnecessary duplication. To the extent that DOJ identifies any statutory obstacles to consolidating its grant programs, it should work with Congress to address them, as needed. 2. Coordinate within and among granting agencies on a consistent basis to review potential or recent grant awards from grant programs that DOJ identifies as overlapping, including subgrant awards reported by prime grant awardees, to the extent possible, before awarding grants. DOJ should also take steps to establish written policies and procedures to govern this coordination and help ensure that it occurs. 3. Require its grant applicants to report all federal grant funding, including all DOJ funding, that they are currently receiving or have recently applied for in their grant applications. 4. Provide appropriate OJP and COPS Office staff with access to both GMS and CMS and appropriate OVW staff with access to CMS. 5. As part of DOJ’s evaluation of its grant management systems, DOJ should ensure that it assesses the feasibility, costs, and benefits of moving to a single grants management system, including the steps needed to harmonize DOJ grant processes, so that any variation in how the granting agencies manage their portfolios is not an encumbrance to potential system unification. 6. Ensure the most timely reporting possible of grant award information to USASpending.gov according to OMB guidelines, which would enable its grantees to comply with their reporting responsibilities according to the same guidelines. 7. Assess whether OAAM relies on an appropriate mix of programmatic grant monitoring and program assessment, and determine whether the office could support additional program assessments. 8. Assess the feasibility, costs, and benefits of OAAM providing assessments for OVW, in addition to OJP and the COPS Office. If DOJ determines that OAAM assessments of OVW grant programs would be more cost-effective and provide greater insight into the effectiveness of OVW grant programs than OVW’s current approach, then the Attorney General should extend OAAM’s oversight to include OVW.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to DOJ for comment. DOJ provided written comments, which are reproduced in full in appendix VI, and concurred with all eight of the recommendations. DOJ also described actions it has underway or plans to take to address the recommendations.

DOJ agreed with the first recommendation that it conduct an assessment to better understand the extent to which the department’s grant programs overlap with one another. DOJ stated it will explore options for carrying out such an assessment in an effort to reduce the risk associated with unnecessary or inappropriate program duplication. For example, DOJ stated it is considering tasking OAAM to conduct such an assessment. Since DOJ is developing options for how it will implement this recommendation, it is too soon to know what specific actions DOJ will take, when they will be completed, and whether they will fully address the intent of the recommendation.

DOJ agreed with the second recommendation that it coordinate within and among granting agencies, to the extent possible, before awarding grants. DOJ stated that its grant-making agencies will continue to closely collaborate and share information prior to making grant awards. DOJ also stated it plans to use the results of the assessment referenced in the first recommendation to develop a targeted and strategic approach for reviewing grant applications during the pre- award process. Since DOJ is considering how it will implement this recommendation, it is too soon to know what specific actions DOJ will take, when they will be completed, and whether they will fully address the intent of the recommendation.

DOJ agreed with the third recommendation that DOJ require its grant applicants to report all federal grant funding, including all DOJ funding, that they are currently receiving or have recently applied for in their grant applications. DOJ stated it plans to use a risk-based approach to implement this recommendation, using the results from its assessment in response to the first recommendation. This is a positive step toward ensuring that DOJ has a more complete picture of an applicant’s access to other federal funding. However, since DOJ has not yet developed its approach, it is too soon to tell whether DOJ’s actions will address the intent of the recommendation.

DOJ agreed with the fourth recommendation that DOJ provide appropriate OJP and COPS Office staff with access to both GMS and CMS and appropriate OVW staff with access to CMS. DOJ noted that OJP will provide read-only GMS access to COPS Office staff and that the COPS Office will provide reports to OJP and OVW from CMS, given the technological barriers to providing external system access. These actions, when implemented, should address the intent of this recommendation.

DOJ agreed with the fifth recommendation that as part of its evaluation of its grant management systems, DOJ should ensure it assesses the feasibility, costs, and benefits of moving to a single grants management system. DOJ stated that it had initiated such a study and plans to complete it within the next six months. When effectively completed, this study, along with any actions taken to implement its findings, should address the intent of this recommendation.

DOJ agreed with the sixth recommendation that DOJ ensure the most timely reporting possible of grant award information to USASpending.gov. DOJ committed to doing its best to ensure timely reporting, but did not provide specific actions or plans to address the intent of the recommendation.

DOJ agreed with the seventh recommendation that DOJ assess whether OAAM relies on an appropriate mix of programmatic grant monitoring and program assessment, and whether the office could support additional program assessments. DOJ stated that additional program assessments would be beneficial and contribute to the improvement of grant programs and operations. DOJ also stated it would explore ways to conduct more program assessments, but did not provide specific actions or plans to address the intent of the recommendation.

DOJ agreed with the eighth recommendation that DOJ assess the feasibility, costs, and benefits of OAAM providing assessments for OVW, in addition to OJP and the COPS Office. DOJ stated that discussions have been initiated between OAAM and OVW related to this recommendation. This is a positive first step, but it is too soon to know whether the results of these discussions and any resulting potential future actions will address the intent of the recommendation.

In addition, DOJ raised concerns about the methodology we used to identify overlap in DOJ’s fiscal year 2010 grant program solicitations across 10 broad justice themes. DOJ stated that our analysis of potential overlap between DOJ funding solicitations substantially overstated the number of programs that might be duplicative. DOJ commented that the table we used to show the overlap was an indication that DOJ was involved in “wasteful duplication.” Our analysis, as summarized in table 2 of this report, demonstrates overlap in the justice areas that DOJ’s grant programs aim to support. Having several overlapping grant programs within individual justice areas requires greater visibility and pre-award coordination on the part of DOJ to diminish the risk of unnecessary duplication at the grant project level. As such, our analysis does not, on its own, indicate unnecessary duplication among DOJ grant programs, but instead identifies the potential risk of unnecessary duplication. Implementing the recommendations in this report that DOJ assess grant program overlap and coordinate grant award decisions will help DOJ identify areas of overlap and mitigate the risk of unnecessary duplication in grants. DOJ also considered the categories we developed for our analysis such as “community crime prevention strategies” as too broad and exclusive of specialized programs such as community policing. We developed our 10 broad justice areas based mainly on programmatic information contained on DOJ granting agency websites and other DOJ literature and believe they fairly demonstrate overlap among DOJ’s various grant programs. We recognize that the more detailed analysis we recommended and DOJ agreed to undertake is necessary to determine the extent of any unnecessary duplication.

DOJ also commented that our sample size of grant applications was too small in number and was not generalizable. As discussed in this report, our sample size was not intended to be generalizable across the entire scope of DOJ grant program awards, but instead was meant to illustrate the potential for unnecessary duplication. DOJ further commented that their investigation of the examples of unnecessary duplication we provided proved that no duplication actually existed in the grant programs. DOJ conducted its review after we provided our examples and focused on how grantees were using the funds they had received. Our analysis of potential duplication focused on grant applications—how applicants proposed to spend federal grant dollars—and not on the verification of activities grantees carried out once DOJ funded them. DOJ’s plans to improve pre-award coordination are positive steps and we believe that by doing so, DOJ will be better positioned to make better informed decisions about the financial needs of grantees and communities for their proposed projects.

Finally, DOJ expressed concern that the report implies that DOJ is not tracking subgrantees’ activities. Our analysis focused on pre-award coordination, not DOJ’s efforts to track subgrantee activities. As such, we recommended that DOJ use the subgrant award information it does have to help inform DOJ’s grant award decision making. We believe that subgrant award information could provide DOJ decision makers with a more complete financial picture of applicants and the projects they propose to be funded by DOJ.

We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General, selected congressional committees, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix VII.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report answers the following questions: (1) To what extent does overlap across Department of Justice (DOJ) grant programs exist and contribute to the risk of unnecessary duplication in grant awards? (2) To what extent has DOJ taken steps to reduce overlap in its grant programs and the potential for unnecessary duplication in grant awards? (3) To what extent does DOJ use programmatic grant monitoring and assessment to determine grant program effectiveness and use the results to enhance its grant programs?

To examine the extent to which overlap across DOJ grant programs exists, we identified the total number of DOJ grant solicitations for fiscal year 2010. To do this, we reviewed the lists posted on the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Office on Violence Against Women (OWV), and Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office websites and confirmed the currency of the information with DOJ officials. To determine whether these solicitations were announcing grant funding available for similar or overlapping purposes, we first established 10 categories of criminal justice areas. We developed these 10 categories after reviewing comparable justice areas identified within OJP’s CrimeSolutions.gov website, which OJP officials stated includes themes addressed through OVW and COPS Office programs; OJP’s Fiscal Year 2010 Program Plan; and other materials from OVW and the COPS Office, such as justice program themes from their respective websites. Next, through analyst consensus, we sorted the grant solicitations according to the 10 justice categories. After identifying solicitations with similar scopes, we then reviewed 26 successful grant applications that were awarded under similar solicitations to identify and assess specific examples of how the recipients planned to use funds from multiple programs in the same or similar manner. The sample we reviewed is not generalizable to all DOJ grant programs because we did not review all of the more than 11,000 grant applications that DOJ funded in fiscal year 2011, but it illustrates the potential for unnecessary duplication. To determine if DOJ could take more action to avoid program overlap that can lead to unnecessary duplication, we applied the Domestic Working Group Grant Accountability Project’s Guide to Opportunities for Improving Grant Accountability.

To examine the extent to which DOJ has taken steps to reduce overlap in its grant programs and the potential for unnecessary duplication in grant awards, we reviewed agency policies, procedures, and guidance on grant program design and award, such as the COPS Office Program Development Team charter and template, and the OJP Grant Manager’s Manual. Further, we interviewed DOJ officials from the three granting agencies to obtain additional information on grant program design and award processes, and the extent to which the three agencies coordinate and share information. We also visited or conducted phone interviews with officials from 11 states, including the five largest and five smallest state recipients of Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) funding. These officials represent the state administering agencies (SAA) responsible for distributing JAG and other DOJ formula block grant funds to subrecipients in California, Florida, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and Wyoming. These officials provided their views regarding the type and timeliness of information on grant awards and subawards they provide to and receive from DOJ. We selected these 11 states based on the amount of JAG funding they receive and the existence of other recipients in their communities receiving DOJ discretionary grants for potentially similar purposes. The results of these contacts are not generalizable to all states, but provided insight into how DOJ grant funds are used locally and into the communication between states and DOJ. To determine if JAG recipients expended grant funds in fiscal year 2010 on sexual assault services, bullet and stab-resistant vests, sex offender registry and notification systems, Internet crime against children task forces, hiring police officers, and correctional officer salaries, we conducted a web- based survey of all recipients of DOJ JAG grant funding who received an award from fiscal years 2005 through 2010. The survey response rate related to SAAs was 89 percent, with 50 out of 56 SAAs answering the questionnaire. We compared agency grant design and award practices against Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government and promising practices identified in the Domestic Working Group Grant Accountability Project’s Guide to Opportunities for Improving Grant Accountability.

To analyze the extent to which DOJ uses programmatic grant monitoring and assessment to determine grant program effectiveness and uses the results to enhance its grant programs, we analyzed DOJ documentation, such as assessments DOJ conducted of its own programs and specific programmatic grant monitoring reports. We also interviewed DOJ officials from the granting agencies, including those tasked with assessment, as well as contractors responsible for assessing grant programs for OVW. This report focuses solely on the types of assessment conducted by DOJ granting agencies on its grant programs. Training and technical assistance provided by the department and its program offices and bureaus to grantees to support the evaluation of individual grant projects, such as the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) Center for Program Evaluation and Performance Measurement, is not included in this report. Also excluded from this report are the outcome evaluations of the impact of grant programs such as those funded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ).

Appendix II: DOJ Granting Agencies’ Organizational Structure

Appendix III: Structure, Purpose, and Funding of DOJ Granting Agencies

OVW Following the enactment of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, the department established the Violence Against Women Office, which later became OVW under OJP. OVW now functions as a separate and distinct office within DOJ and is headed by a presidentially appointed, Senate- confirmed Director.

COPS Office The Attorney General established the COPS Office in October 1994 to administer community policing grants authorized under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The Attorney General appoints a Director to head the COPS Office.

Bureau of Justice Assistance Bureau of Justice Statistics

National Institute of Justice

Office of Juvenile Justice

Office for Victims of Crime

Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking OJP provides grants to various organizations, including state and local governments, universities, and private foundations, which are intended to develop the nation’s capacity to prevent and control crime, administer justice, and assist crime victims.

OVW administers financial and technical assistance to local, state, and tribal governments; courts; nonprofit organizations; community-based organizations; secondary schools; institutions of higher education; and state and tribal coalitions. OVW provides grants for developing programs, policies, and practices aimed at ending domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

The COPS Office provides grants to and shares information with the state, local, territory, and tribal law enforcement agencies to advance community policing.

From fiscal years 2005 to 2012, OJP received approximately $24 billion for OJP grant programs. In 2010, almost 3 billion was available to OJP to fund grants, and OJP issued 223 solicitations for grants.ª According to OJP, it awarded nearly 5,000 grants in 2010.

From fiscal years 2005 to 2012, OVW received approximately $3.4 billion for OVW grant programs. In 2010, OVW received $418.5 million for OVW grant programs, and OVW issued 19 solicitations for grants.

From fiscal years 2005 to 2012, the COPS Office received approximately $5.3 billion to fund COPS Office grant programs. In 2010, the COPS Office received $791.6 million to fund COPS Office grants, and the COPS Office issued nine solicitations for grants.

Solicitations are announcements of new grant funding available and explain areas for which funding can be used. These numbers reflect solicitations provided by each individual office and do not reflect any joint solicitations, which are those offered in tandem with other program offices, either within or external to DOJ (e.g., other DOJ components or federal agencies).

Appendix IV: Consolidated, Braided, and Blended Grant Program Solicitations

According to DOJ officials, there are three ways in which DOJ grant programs can be merged or better coordinated—through consolidation, braiding, and blending. Figures 4,5, and 6 explain these mechanisms.

Appendix V: Office of Audit Assessment and Management Structure

Audit and Review Division

coordinates audits, such as Single Audits that independent nongovernmental auditors conduct, as well as those that the Inspector General (IG) and GAO conduct, reviews internal control processes (A-123), and manages DOJ’s High Risk Grantee Program, which applies criteria to identify grantees most at risk of fraud, waste, or abuse in use of their grant funds.

Program Assessment Division

oversees OJP and COPS Office programmatic monitoring, including development and implementation of standards and protocols, and assesses grant programs and initiatives of OJP and the COPS Office, as well as operational activities.

Grants Management Division

serves as the primary resource for OJP grants management policies and procedures by producing authoritative guidance, develops and facilitates grants related training to staff and grantees, manages Grants Management System (GMS) and other tools and facilitates OJP’s business process improvement efforts.

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Justice

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Joy Booth, Assistant Director, and Christian Montz, Analyst-in-Charge, managed this assignment. Julie E. Silvers, Marya Link, Caitlin Carlberg, and Michael Sweet made significant contributions to the work. Michele Fejfar assisted with design and methodology. Janet Temko and Tom Lombardi provided legal support. Lara Miklozek provided assistance in report preparation.