Department of Justice Reauthorization: Provisions to Improve Program Management, Compliance, and Evaluation of Justice Assistance Grants
Released: 2006-01-10T00:00:00

Current Legislative Developments

The Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 wassigned into law on January 5, 2006 ( P.L. 109-162 ). The act reauthorizes many of the agencies andprograms under the Department of Justice's (DOJ's) jurisdiction. It also includes several provisionsthat builds upon previous efforts to restructure the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) and improvesits administration of numerous grant programs to assist state, local, and tribal governments, as wellas nonprofit organizations with preventing and controlling crime.

Introduction

Since 1999, Congress has expressed an interest in the organizational structure of the DOJ'sOJP. For example, in the Omnibus Appropriations Act for FY1999, (1) Congress noted the "dramaticgrowth" of OJP and questioned its responsiveness to the needs of state, local, and tribal governments. At issue was the apparent duplication of efforts between OJP's grant programs (as well as grantprograms administered by other offices in DOJ) and the various bureaus within OJP that werecharged with administering grants. Congress stressed the need for a management structure thatwould allow "for greater centralization of accountability and responsibility for obligation of all OJPfunds." (2) To achieve thisgoal, Congress required OJP to develop a plan that would streamline the various grant programsunder its jurisdiction. (3) A subsequent appropriations act further required OJP to submit a restructuring plan. (4)

In addition, both the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and DOJ's Office of InspectorGeneral (OIG) have reported on issues facing OJP and the management of its grant programs. BothGAO and OIG found that the current organizational structure of OJP may not be adequate to ensureits grant monitoring problems are resolved (see discussion below).

At issue for Congress is whether there needs to be an independent office that has oversightauthority over OJP's grant programs and the degree to which that office would enhance or duplicatethe efforts that are currently being performed by OJP's grant managers, the National Institute ofJustice and the OIG. Additionally, should a stand-alone office be responsible for providing state,local, and tribal governments, as well as nonprofit organizations with training on OJP and other DOJgrant programs compliance? And would such an office be duplicative of other functions alreadyexisting within DOJ?

This report opens with a description of the current makeup of OJP. It then discusses someof the issues facing OJP that have been identified by GAO and the OIG that have led to the currentcongressional proposal to restructure the Office. A description of the Violence Against Women andDepartment of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 is discussed and analyzed within the context ofrestructuring OJP. This report, however, does not discuss the Violence Against Women Act(VAWA) provisions. (5) The report concludes with a discussion of possible issues and questions that could be raised withrespect to the act's restructuring OJP.

Office of Justice Programs

In 1984, Congress created OJP by passing the Justice Assistance Act of 1984. (6) The Assistant AttorneyGeneral (AAG) for Justice Programs oversees OJP, which has approximately 700 employees. (7) OJP is the main agency withinDOJ that awards grants to states, local government, and nonprofit organizations to help develop thecountry's capacity to prevent and control crime, improve criminal justice systems, increaseknowledge about crime and assist victims of crime. (8) (There are other offices within DOJ that also award grants,specifically the Violence Against Women Office and the Community Oriented Police Office.)

The AAG assures that OJP's policies reflect those of the President, the Attorney General, andCongress. (9) The AAGcoordinates the efforts of OJP's five bureaus and two program offices, ensuring OJP's mission is met. OJP's five bureaus are the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), the National Institute of Justice(NIJ), the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Bureau of Justice Statistics(BJS), and the Office of Victims of Crime (OVC). OJP's two program offices are the CommunityCapacity Development Office (CCDO) and the Office of the Police Corps and Law EnforcementEducation.

Bureau of Justice Assistance(10)

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) provides leadership and assistance to state, local,and tribal governments in support of local criminal justice strategies to achieve safe communities. BJA's purpose is to provide "funding, training, and technical assistance to state and localgovernments, Indian tribes, and public and private organizations to combat violent and drug-relatedcrime and help improve the criminal justice system." (11) BJA awards formula grants to state and local governments(including U.S. territories and the District of Columbia) through its Justice Assistance Grant (JAG)program. BJA also administers a variety of discretionary grant programs as well as payment andbenefit programs such as the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program. (12) BJA also makes a varietyof competitive awards through open solicitations for applications. (13)

National Institute of Justice(14)

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is the research, evaluation, and development agencyfor the DOJ. (15) Themission of NIJ is to "advance scientific research, development and evaluation to enhance theadministration of justice and public safety." (16) Major NIJ programs include:

social science research and evaluation;

technology development;

forensic laboratory capacity development;

technology assistance for state and local public safety agencies;and

dissemination of information through publications, websites and conferences.

NIJ sponsors research and development and technology assistance by awarding grants to externalorganizations. NIJ also conducts internal evaluations of programs, policies and technologies for theDOJ. NIJ actively solicits the views of criminal justice professionals and researchers in its effortsto develop knowledge and tools that can inform policy and practice. In so doing, NIJ often awardsgrants to evaluate the effectiveness of OJP grant programs.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention(17)

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) (18) awards grants to states andlocalities to help them improve their juvenile justice system through programs that seek toincorporate proven prevention strategies, provide treatment and rehabilitation and hold juvenileoffenders accountable. OJJDP awards formula grants to states, U.S. territories and the District ofColumbia through the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant (JABG) program and through its TitleV grant program. OJJDP also makes awards through open solicitations for applications. In addition,OJJDP sponsors innovative research, demonstration, evaluation, statistics, replication, technicalassistance and training programs to promote delinquency prevention and response to juvenileviolence and delinquency. (19)

Bureau of Justice Statistics(20)

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) collects, analyzes, publishes, and disseminates dataon crime, criminal offenders, victims of crime, and the operation of the criminal justice system atall levels of government. (21) The data are made available to federal, state, and localgovernment as well as the public to assist in combating crime and to ensure the efficientadministration of justice throughout the country. BJS also provides technical assistance to state,local, and tribal governments to help them develop their criminal justice statistical capabilities. While BJS does administer grant programs, like the National Criminal History ImprovementProgram (NCHIP), the administration of grants is not the primary function of this bureau. (22)

Office for Victims of Crime(23)

The Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) (24) provides federal funds for victim compensation and assistanceprograms across the country. OVC also provides training for professionals working with victims,developing and disseminating publications, supporting projects to enhance victims' rights andservices, and educating the public about victim issues. (25) Funds for OVC programs come from the Crime Victims Fundestablished by the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA). (26) The Crime Victims Fund is authorized to use donations fromprivate entities, bequests, or private gifts by P.L. 107-56 . (27) OVC uses discretionary funds for training and technicalassistance and demonstration initiatives to enhance the knowledge, skills, and abilities of victimservice providers.

Community Capacity Development Office

The Community Capacity Development Office (CCDO) is responsible for overseeing andmanaging the Weed and Seed Program. (28) Until 2004, CCDO was known as the Executive Office of Weedand Seed. CCDO was created in March 2004 to work with local communities to develop programsthat deter crime and promote neighborhood revitalization. (29) CCDO's current missionis to develop, evaluate, and implement policies that serve as models for community capacitydevelopment efforts by providing counseling for federal, state, and local governments and the privatesector on a variety of justice-related community issues. (30) CCDO also hosts OJP's American Indian and Alaska NativeAffairs Desk, which was created to enhance access to information about funding opportunities forfederally recognized tribes, the availability of training and technical assistance and otherinformation. (31)

Office of the Police Corps and Law Enforcement Education

The Office of the Police Corps and Law Enforcement Education funds state Police Corpsprograms to combat crime by providing state and local law enforcement with a greater pool of highlyqualified candidates. To this end, the office awards competitive scholarships to students who agreeto be law enforcement officers for four years after they complete a four-year degree. (32) Police Corps programsalso award noncompetitive scholarships to dependent children of law enforcement officers killed inthe line of duty who are enrolled in accredited universities.

The next section discusses the role of the DOJ's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) inauditing OJP and other DOJ offices' management of grant programs. Later in the report, the auditingfunctions of the OIG are discussed in the context of the legislative proposal to create an audit office.

DOJ Office of the Inspector General

DOJ's OIG is responsible for oversight of DOJ activities and programs, including OJP'sadministration of several federal law enforcement assistance programs. The OIG Audit Divisionperforms "financial and performance audits of organizations, programs and functions within theDepartment." (33) Performance audits conducted by OIG's Audit Division review economy, efficiency andprogrammatic issues. The OIG also has an Evaluation and Inspection Division that provides the Attorney General with an alternative method to the traditional audit for evaluating the effectivenessof DOJ programs and activities. The Evaluations and Inspection Division's work usually results inways for DOJ to streamline operations, eliminate unnecessary regulations, and minimize inefficientand ineffective procedures.

Assessments of OJP Grant Management and Program Evaluations

Since the 1990s, both GAO and OIG have reported on the following issues facing OJP withrespect to the administration of its grant programs:

lack of monitoring and grantee compliance;

lack of outcome-based evaluations;

failure to adequately review grant applications; and

failure to undertake more aggressive and timely corrective action on auditfindings. (34)

GAO Reports and Findings

Since 1996, GAO has reported on issues pertaining to OJP's management and monitoring ofits grant programs. Recent GAO congressional testimony revealed that OJP has encounteredproblems with respect to grants in the following programs: Byrne, OJJDP Discretionary, andViolence Against Women Office (VAWO). (35) After a review of several of OJP's grant files that were active inFY1999 and FY2000, GAO noted the following: (1) the grant files did not regularly documentmonitoring activities in accordance with the monitoring plan for the grantee; (2) a "substantial"number of the grant files did not include all of the progress and financial reports and many of thesereports were submitted late; and (3) the grant files did not always include closeout documents. (36)

According to GAO, OJP has implemented some of the recommendations that resulted fromthe GAO's review of OJP's grant files. OJP created the Grants Management Manual (GMM) toensure a consistent set of grant monitoring standards across OJP's bureaus. Additionally, OJPimplemented "Operation Closeout," which resulted in an accelerated process for closing out grantsby revising related guidelines. OJP also implemented an agency-wide grant managementsystem. (37)

GAO has also raised issues pertaining to OJP evaluations of its grant programs. For example,in 2001, GAO issued a report that concluded that OJP evaluations of grant programs may beproblematic. (38) GAOexamined grant programs in OJP's OJJDP. After reviewing 10 OJJDP-funded evaluations, GAOexpressed concerns about the methodology used in the evaluations. (39) GAO noted that five ofthe evaluations were in the formative stage and five were being implemented. Three of theevaluations that were in the formative stage and two that were being implemented lacked comparisongroups. In addition, three of the five evaluations that were in the implementation stage wereexperiencing problems with data collection.

Another GAO report noted many of the same methodological problems. (40) GAO reviewed 10evaluations sponsored by OJP's National Institute for Justice (NIJ); five evaluations of VAWO grantprograms and five evaluations of BJA Byrne grant programs. (41) Of the four impactevaluations that had moved past the formative stage, only one, the Byrne Children At Risk Program,was found to be methodologically sound. (42)

DOJ OIG Reports and Findings

The Inspector General's memorandums on the Top Management Challenges in DOJ for theyears 2002-2004 note that OJP continues to have problems managing its grants. (43) According to the OIG, partof the problem stems from the large influx of grant funds into DOJ since the passage of the ViolentCrime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 ( P.L. 103-322 ). Like GAO, the OIG found thatmany grantees were not submitting their progress reports or financial reports. In addition, OIG'saudits found that site-visit reviews were not consistently addressing all of the grant conditions. (44)

In its FY2003 memorandum, the OIG found DOJ's grant programs to be fragmented,resulting in decreased efficiency and increased costs to award and administer the grants. (45) OIG audits also discoveredduplication in some of the grants under OJP's jurisdiction and grants under the Community OrientedPolicing Service (COPS) program. (46) Additionally, OIG found some of DOJ's grant programs lackingan online application system for grantees. The OIG found, however, that OJP was working towardfully automating the entire grant process with an online system. Nonetheless, the 2004memorandum (47) shedslight on some problems that continue to exist with OJP programs. An audit of OJP's training andtechnical assistance grants found that program offices making training and technical assistanceawards did not consistently conduct regular programmatic and financial monitoring and grantmanagers did not always ensure that financial and progress reports were accurate and submitted ontime.

A 2005 report from OIG on awards to tribal governments reviewed several OJP grantprograms (and some COPS programs) found that of the 102 grant files reviewed, only 4% containedsight monitoring reports, 12% contained evidence of desk monitoring reviews and none contained evidence of telephone monitoring reviews. (48) The OIG found that 81% of the files reviewed did not containone or more of the required financial reports and those reports were not submitted in a timely mannerin 97% of the files reviewed. (49) In addition, 80% of the grant files reviewed were missing oneor more of the required progress reports and those reports were not submitted in a timely manner in88% of the files reviewed. (50) In addition to these findings, the OIG also found that theprogram offices were not closing out grants in a timely manner. (51) The OIG report on awardsto tribal governments suggests OJP is still encountering problems with monitoring grants.

The OIG's and the GAO's findings seems to indicate that the current organizational structureof OJP may not be adequate to ensure that its grant monitoring problems are resolved; henceCongress has proposed the creation of an Office of Audit, Assessment and Management.

The Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005

The act authorizes appropriations for DOJ for FY2006 through FY2009. Among otherthings, the act authorizes appropriations for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant(JAG) program and codifies the Community Capacity Development Office (CCDO). The act alsoreauthorizes and restructures grant programs under the COPS office as well as grant programs underthe VAWO.

One of the more controversial titles of the act seeks to make DOJ grant programs moreefficient by creating an Office of Audit, Assessment and Management. DOJ currently has twocomponents that are supposed to monitor the effectiveness and efficiency of its programs: grantmanagers and the OIG. OJP grant managers, who are located in each of OJP's bureaus and programoffices, are charged with monitoring the grants made by their office and the OIG is charged withpromoting economy and efficiency within DOJ. (52) The role of OJP grant managers and the OIG in monitoring theeffectiveness and efficiency of DOJ programs is discussed in greater detail below. In addition tocreating a new audit office, the act would also codify and restructure the CCDO.

The Office of Audit, Assessment and Management

The act establishes the Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management (hereafter referred toas "the Office"). The Director of the Office will be appointed by the Attorney General. The Officeis responsible for the following: (1) carrying out and coordinating performance audits; (2) takingactions to ensure the compliance with the terms of grants carried out by DOJ; and (3) managinginformation with respect to any grant carried out by OJP or any other grant program under DOJ thatthe Attorney General considers appropriate. This analysis centers on whether the oversight providedby the Office would be duplicative of the oversight of grant programs that is currently being providedby NIJ, OJP Grant Mangers and DOJ's OIG.

National Institute of Justice. As stated above, NIJis the agency in DOJ that coordinates and oversees evaluations of other agencies' programs. NIJ hasan Evaluation Division within their Office of Evaluation and Research that focuses on the evaluationof other DOJ programs. (53) The act requires that the performance audits carried out by theOffice not affect the authority or duty of the Director of NIJ to carry out evaluations of DOJprograms, namely OJP grant program effectiveness. The act also requires, however, that the Directorof NIJ consult with the Director of the Office when evaluating a DOJ program. While performanceaudits and evaluations are not the same thing, it is not clear whether the performance auditsconducted by the Office will be completely exclusive of the evaluation of DOJ programs conductedby NIJ. NIJ evaluations seek to determine whether the program was effective as opposed todetermining if the grantee was in compliance with the terms of the grant.

OJP Grant Managers. The act requires theDirector of the Office to take action to ensure a grantee comes into compliance with the terms of agrant if found to be in noncompliance. OJP's Grant Manager Manual (GMM) outlines the duties andresponsibilities for an OJP grant manager; grant managers are currently responsible for ensuringgrantees are in compliance with the terms of their grants. (54) In other words, they make sure that grantees are adhering to thespecial conditions, which the program office has established for the grant. Grant managers are alsopartly responsible for ensuring the program is meeting the goals and objectives as outlined in thegrantee's application by making sure grantees submit their progress and financial reports in a timelymanner. (55) Grantmanagers monitor compliance through desk reviews, telephone monitoring reviews with grantees,progress reports and site visits. (56) Grant managers are authorized to suspend or cease a grantee'sfunding if they find the grantee is noncompliant and the grantee is not taking the necessary actionsto come into compliance with the terms of the grant. (57)

Grant Management System. The act requires theDirector to establish and maintain a modern, automated system for managing all information relatingto the grants made under covered programs. In many ways the system required by this provisionmirrors OJP's Grant Management System (GMS), a web-accessible computer system capable ofprocessing grant applications and awards. All grantees for FY2004 and FY2005 were required tosubmit their applications to OJP through GMS. The GMS contains all award documents along withthe grantee's application. Grant managers can add notes to document actions taken during theapplication process and after the award has been made. Grantees are also required to submit progressreports through GMS. OJP also uses GMS to assist with program monitoring. Grant managers mustreview and approve a grantee's progress report in GMS. Grant managers are also required to entertheir site visit reports into GMS. OJP is requesting that grant managers use GMS to record allactions they have taken on the grant. All data for each grantee are accessible to any grant managerthrough GMS.

The Community Capacity Development Office and the Weed and Seed Grant Program

The act changes the structure and functions of the CCDO. The act creates an Office of Weedand Seed Strategies headed by a Director. The Office of Weed and Seed Strategies will beresponsible for administering the Weed and Seed Program. Prior to the enactment of the act, theWeed and Seed Program was administered by CCDO. In effect, the act takes the Weed and Seedprogram out of CCDO and reestablishes an office responsible for administering the program, as itwas under the Executive Office of Weed and Seed (the predecessor to CCDO). Under Section 1159of the act, CCDO will be the exclusive provider of training for all OJP programs and any otherprograms under DOJ that the Attorney General considers appropriate. The training provided byCCDO will help grantees understand the procedural and substantive requirements of the program. The training provided by other offices in DOJ will transfer to CCDO.

Possible Issues and Questions

While the Administration has previously taken steps to restructure OJP, there remainoutstanding issues regarding OJP grant program evaluations and compliance monitoring. At issuefor Congress is whether OJP has done enough to fully correct the identified deficiencies in itsmanagement and oversight of its grant programs or whether another level of oversight is necessaryto streamline OJP grant programs and improve efficiency through greater monitoring of programs? The GAO and the OIG reports raise questions about whether the current organizational structure ofOJP is capable of properly managing its grant programs. Are grant managers at OJP accountable forthe performance of the grants they manage? Has OJP done enough to train grant managers toaddress the issues reported by the GAO and the OIG when monitoring their grants? Has theAdministration taken the steps necessary to ensure that grantees are held accountable for submittingtheir reports and producing results?

In exercising its oversight role, Congress may want to explore how federal funds are overseenand the findings of the OIG and the GAO are addressed. The creation of the Office of Audit,Assessment and Management may raise questions about possible duplication of efforts. The actappears to give the Office of Audit, Assessment and Management many of the same oversightresponsibilities that OJP's grant managers, NIJ and the OIG are already charged with. Congress maychoose to consider the following:

Could proper oversight of federal funds be achieved with improvements toOJP's current structure?

How will the Office of Audit, Assessment and Management responsibilitiesbe separate from those of OJP, the OIG and NIJ?

Does the creation of OAAM provide the program evaluations that would bethe basis for a more fundamental realignment of OJP grant programs as well as improve compliancewith grant program requirements?

Would a stand-alone Community Capacity Development Office (CCDO) maderesponsible exclusively for providing state, local, and tribal governments, as well as non-profitorganizations with training on OJP and other DOJ grant programs compliance be separate from thosefunctions already being provided by other entities?