OJP’s bureaus and offices provide grants and other awards to various organizations, including state and local governments, universities, and private entities, which are intended to develop the nation’s capacity to prevent and control crime, administer justice, and assist crime victims. Within OJP, NIJ serves as DOJ’s research and development agency and provides evidence-based knowledge and tools to address crime and justice challenges, particularly at the state and local levels. As part of this mission, NIJ provides awards from the DNA and forensic program appropriation and administers these awards for the purpose of DNA analysis and capacity enhancement and for other forensic science purposes. Within NIJ, the Office of Investigative and Forensic Sciences is responsible for administering awards for these purposes. According to OJP, approximately seven NIJ staff members within the Office of Investigative and Forensic Sciences are responsible for managing and monitoring funds associated with the DNA and forensic program appropriation. NIJ prioritizes initiatives it will fund from the DNA and forensic program appropriation on an annual basis and provides awards through various funding mechanisms, including grants and nongrant agreements as described below. NIJ’s award mechanism varies depending on the type of initiative being funded and the type of recipient receiving the funds. NIJ formula discretionary grants: Awards provided under a formula set by DOJ and based primarily on the violent crime rate. The DNA Backlog Reduction Program is the only formula grant program awarded through the DNA and forensic program appropriation. Other discretionary grants: Awards provided to eligible entities, which vary depending on the purpose and requirements of the award. Such grants may be awarded to state and local governments, public and private universities, as well as for-profit and nonprofit organizations. NIJ’s other discretionary grants are generally awarded on a competitive basis. Interagency agreements: Awards between federal agencies establishing an agreement for projects that may cover similar topics and initiatives as NIJ’s other discretionary grants. Federal agencies may not receive funds through grants; however, they may compete for some awards, if eligible, or receive non- competitive awards, if determined to be appropriate for NIJ’s DNA and forensic science activities. Contracts: Agreements with various nongovernment entities, such as private laboratories, for various services, such as conducting certain DNA analytical services or providing other technical scientific services. NIJ funds grants through solicitations, which are formal requests for funding proposals outlining goals, eligibility requirements, and the instructions for applying to receive grant funding. Federal agencies may apply under such solicitations if eligible; however, in such cases, NIJ awards federal agencies funds through interagency agreements, and not through the solicitation and grant-making process. Contracts are not funded through the typical grant-making process, but through requests for contract proposals. For the purposes of this report, “initiatives” include all awards NIJ funded from the DNA and forensic program appropriation, including awards funded through grants, interagency agreements, and contracts. NIJ provides funds under various initiatives for the purposes of reducing the DNA backlog and for other forensic sciences needs, including research and development and forensic science training. Table 1 describes NIJ’s initiatives funded from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 through the DNA and forensic program appropriation that directly benefit state and local government DNA-related efforts to reduce backlogs and build capacity. Throughout this report, we refer to these initiatives as the DNA backlog initiatives. Table 2 describes NIJ’s additional initiatives funded through the DNA and forensic program appropriation that do not directly benefit the state and local government DNA analysis backlog, but address other DNA and forensic science challenges identified by the agency from fiscal years 2008 through 2012. OJP policy directs that monitoring be performed to assess the performance of programs that support NIJ initiatives. For example, for grants, during programmatic monitoring, grant managers review qualitative information (such as progress reports submitted by grantees and supporting documentation on grantee program implementation), and quantitative information (such as performance measurement data submitted by grantees), to determine grant progress and performance. In grant applications, grantees are required to propose grant goals that support NIJ’s stated program purpose, the activities through which they aim to achieve those goals, and an implementation plan describing timelines and steps for the activities. For interagency agreements and contracts, OJP and NIJ officials determine the type of monitoring documents, such as progress reports, required based on the goals and objectives of each specific award. From fiscal years 2008 through 2012, Congress appropriated approximately $691 million to NIJ to provide grant and other awards for state and local governments to reduce the DNA backlog and increase DNA lab capacity, as well as for other forensic science purposes. The appropriations language was broad and enabled NIJ to allocate funding for a variety of forensic programs at funding levels established by the agency. As a result, NIJ allocated funds for both its DNA backlog initiatives and other forensic science initiatives based on NIJ’s mission and annual budgeting priorities. For instance, over the 5-year period, NIJ provided funding through the DNA Backlog Reduction Program, other discretionary DNA backlog initiatives such as analyzing DNA samples from cold cases, and other forensic science initiatives awarded through grants and nongrants including research, development, and evaluation; forensic science training; and support for the development of best practices. NIJ allocated the majority—about 64 percent, or $442 million of the available $691 million in the DNA and forensic program appropriations— to DNA backlog initiatives. Our analysis of the data shows that about $343 million of this $442 million was awarded through the DNA Backlog Reduction Program, and the remaining approximately $98 million was awarded through its other DNA backlog initiatives. According to NIJ officials, these awards directly affected the DNA backlog by providing funds to state and local entities for either analyzing DNA samples or increasing the capacity of state and local laboratories to conduct DNA sample analyses. Additionally, NIJ awarded approximately 31 percent, or $212 million of the available $691 million, to other DNA and forensic science purposes that do not directly reduce the DNA backlog. NIJ officials stated that funding from some of these initiatives may have indirect or long-term benefits for reducing the DNA backlog. The remainder of the funding, $38 million, went toward other activities, such as management and administration. See figure 1. We further analyzed the 64 percent of appropriated funding that went toward the DNA Backlog Reduction Program and other DNA backlog initiatives over the 5-year period. We found that, annually, NIJ generally has increased the percentage of funding provided to the DNA Backlog Reduction Program, while the overall amount of the DNA and forensic program funds available through appropriations and prior year carryover decreased from a high of about $153 million in fiscal year 2010 to $118 million in fiscal year 2012. For instance, in fiscal year 2008, NIJ awarded about 36 percent of the total amount available to NIJ to obligate for the DNA Backlog Reduction Program. By 2012, NIJ had increased the amount to about 63 percent of the total available for obligation. At the same time, funds awarded through its other DNA backlog initiatives generally decreased. See figure 2 for the proportion of funds provided for the DNA Backlog Reduction Program and other backlog initiatives by fiscal year. NIJ officials stated that the increased funding for the DNA Backlog Reduction Program was primarily because the agency decided to prioritize the program more than its other initiatives. In addition, NIJ officials stated that funding also increased when the agency subsumed the Convicted Offender and/or Arrestee DNA Backlog Reduction Program into the larger DNA Backlog Reduction Program starting in 2011. As a result, the new program had a larger scope and provided more money to grantees through NIJ’s continued emphasis on this program. We also analyzed the breakdown of the grants and nongrant awards for other forensic science initiatives that do not directly contribute to reducing the DNA backlog. From fiscal years 2008 through 2012, this amounted to about 31 percent of the $691 million appropriated, or about $212 million. See figure 3 below for an analysis of funds awarded to other forensic science initiatives. We further analyzed grant and award description information across the initiatives that do not directly contribute to reducing the DNA backlog to determine whether they were DNA-related, and our analysis showed that more than $121 million of the approximately $212 million for other forensic science initiatives covered a range of DNA-related projects such as research, development, and evaluation to improve the ability to analyze aged or compromised DNA samples, DNA training for state and local laboratories, and DNA-related initiatives such as the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System. NIJ officials stated that the agency funded these projects because they provide valuable services and resources to practitioners solving crimes with DNA. For instance, DNA-related research can lead to faster and better methods for recovering and analyzing DNA. Also, NIJ officials stated that the agency’s mission includes facilitating faster and better DNA-related knowledge transfer across the country. As a result, several of its technical assistance initiatives covered a facet of NIJ’s commitment to training and information sharing. NIJ officials stated they consider these DNA-related initiatives to be a form of DNA capacity enhancement and an important part of the strategy to reduce the DNA backlog. The remaining amount—approximately $90 million of the $212 million— was awarded to support other areas of forensic science. This represents about 13 percent of the $691 million appropriated and includes efforts such as research, development, and evaluation of faster and less expensive methods to detect drugs or explosives at crime scenes and training for cell phone and other digital information forensic evidence. NIJ officials stated that NIJ has authority to support the criminal justice community in general forensic science endeavors, which is important because lab technicians must process many types of forensic evidence. NIJ officials added that cases may be solved through many different types of evidence and manners of processing, not just through DNA. They stated that faster and better analysis of other forensic evidence may help increase the amount of time lab technicians have to analyze DNA samples and indirectly benefit how many DNA cases can be completed. NIJ has a process in place for determining its annual priorities for the allocation of DNA and forensic program appropriation funds; however, NIJ does not clearly document this process. According to NIJ officials, NIJ staff use the prior fiscal years’ funding as a starting point to make a proposed initial estimate of the amount to be allocated to the DNA Backlog Reduction Program. Specifically, NIJ staff examine the amount of funds remaining on active formula grant awards from prior fiscal years, and then use historical funding data to determine what is needed to fund eligible applicants for the next fiscal year. After the proposed initial allocation for the DNA Backlog Reduction Program has been determined, NIJ staff then develop an initial recommendation for how the estimated remaining funding will be allocated to other DNA and forensic initiatives. In addition, NIJ uses the professional expertise of its forensic staff, as well as input from NIJ-sponsored Technology Working Groups (TWG). These groups are committees of 25 to 30 experienced practitioners from local, state, tribal and federal agencies and laboratories associated with a particular NIJ technology investment portfolio, such as DNA Forensics or General Forensics, that help NIJ determine the criminal justice technology needs of the field. After NIJ staff arrive at proposed allocations among the initiatives, staff brief the Director of NIJ with documents—such as budget briefing slides or funding memos—that outline their priority areas. The NIJ Director then determines the initial allocation among the various initiatives. NIJ next begins the process of implementing these initiatives through solicitations. According to NIJ officials, the solicitations are developed by NIJ staff possessing the relevant subject matter expertise, in consultation with Office of Investigative and Forensic Sciences leadership and with input from the forensic science TWGs. NIJ then posts each solicitation to the NIJ web site and either a federal government grant website or an OJP web-based system in order to accept proposals from qualified applicants applying for funding. Qualified proposals submitted in response to a competitive solicitation are subjected to a peer review process and evaluated for their scientific merit. Funding recommendations for individual proposals are, in part, informed by peer review and, in the case of forensics-related research proposals, the needs and priorities identified by the TWGs. According to NIJ officials, the rationale for funding allocation decisions, such as the amount to be used for the DNA Backlog Reduction Program, is documented in the briefing slides and funding memos that are presented to the NIJ Director. However, according to our review, these documents do not consistently or adequately demonstrate NIJ’s rationale for how funding priorities are determined. Specifically, from fiscal years 2008 through 2011, NIJ used budget briefing slides to present funding priorities to the NIJ Director. These briefing slides showed the various initiatives and the amount of funding NIJ proposed to allocate to each initiative, but they did not consistently provide justifications for how or why NIJ determined these amounts. For fiscal years 2008 and 2009, the briefing slides included rationale sections that were descriptions of the funding being allocated rather than justifications for why NIJ chose to allocate specific funding amounts to each initiative. For example, for fiscal year 2008, for the Forensic Technology Center of Excellence initiative, NIJ provided an itemized list of the funding request and projects in the rationale section. For fiscal year 2010, the budget briefing document outlined recommended changes to the DNA Backlog Reduction Program, such as adjusting minimum funding levels available to states and units of local government. However, the document did not include any rationale for this decision. For fiscal years 2012 and 2013, NIJ changed its process from using briefing slides to using funding memos to present funding prioritization decisions to the NIJ Director. While these memos show the final amounts NIJ decided to allocate to various initiatives, they do not provide details on the justifications for how funding levels were determined for each initiative. Further, although NIJ had a category for rationale in the fiscal year 2008 and 2009 briefing slides, this practice ended beginning with fiscal year 2010. According to NIJ officials, there was no longer a need to include a rationale in the briefing slides because the briefings to the NIJ Director began occurring later in the prioritization process and the Director’s signature, indicating approval of funding prioritization decisions, had already been obtained. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that internal control and all transactions and other significant events need to be clearly documented, and the documentation should be readily available for examination. The documentation should appear in management directives, administrative policies, or operating manuals, and all documentation and records should be properly managed and maintained. The standards also state that transactions and significant events are to be clearly documented to help management with decision making and to help ensure operations are carried out as intended. According to NIJ officials, the budget briefing slides for fiscal years 2008 through 2011 and the funding memos for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 are the only documents the agency uses to show its rationale for prioritization of the DNA and forensic program appropriation. Additionally, in light of budget uncertainty from year to year, NIJ officials believe their current process is the most useful because it allows the agency flexibility for making decisions. However, without a clearly documented process that demonstrates the rationale for how NIJ is prioritizing its DNA and forensic program appropriation, there is limited transparency regarding how and why the agency is allocating its funding. In addition, documenting the agency’s rationale for prioritizing funding—regardless of the timing of the briefing to the NIJ Director—would be worthwhile so that there is a record of the agency’s decision. Furthermore, the significant amount of funding NIJ administers under this appropriation, as well as the continuing demand for DNA analysis, highlights the importance of ensuring transparency when it comes to determining priorities for funding allocations. NIJ has processes in place to assess progress of the DNA Backlog Reduction Program, but does not have an approach to verify performance data submitted by grantees so as to reduce error rates. NIJ also has a performance measure to assess the results of this program, but data are lacking to determine whether efforts are having a measurable impact in reducing the DNA backlog. NIJ assesses performance of the DNA Backlog Reduction Program by requiring grantees to submit reports every 6 months outlining their progress in, among other things, meeting the program goals and objectives established in their initial applications for funding. A key component of these progress reports is data on grant results— performance data—that outline grantee progress such as in analyzing cases using NIJ funds. NIJ program managers are responsible for reviewing performance measure data to assess progress in meeting grantee goals and objectives. NIJ also assesses grantee progress and performance by conducting monitoring activities that include, among other things, desk reviews and in-depth monitoring activities. While NIJ has developed performance measures for its grant programs and collects performance measurement data from its grantees, the agency does not have an approach to verify the reliability of the data—a process of checking or testing performance data to reduce the risk of using data that contain significant errors—and, as a result, faces continuing data errors. In October 2011, based on NIJ’s review of progress reports, NIJ noted that, with respect to the DNA Backlog Reduction Program, 30 percent of progress reports submitted by grantees in 2011 had errors in the collection and reporting of data, contained inaccurate data, or lacked goals and updates on progress achieved. Furthermore, according to an NIJ review of site visits it conducted in 2010, NIJ identified many issues with how data are collected and, many times, NIJ found data that were neither accurate nor auditable. In response to these concerns, in October 2011, NIJ provided grantees with additional guidance for preparing data collection plans and required them to explain any changes in data that they had previously submitted. NIJ also began requiring grantees to use an updated progress report form and provided an updated spreadsheet with pre-populated math formulas for reporting data on cases and samples analyzed to minimize data reporting errors. However, in March 2013, a year and a half after these actions, NIJ officials stated that they still estimate that 30 percent of progress reports submitted by grantees contain errors. NIJ officials noted that progress reports are sent back to grantees to correct mistakes, and the grantees are in turn required to send the reports back to NIJ for review and approval. OJP requires that award recipients collect data that are appropriate for facilitating reporting requirements for GPRA, as amended, and that valid and auditable source documentation is available for such data. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance states that in order to assess progress toward achievement of performance goals, performance data must be appropriately accurate and reliable for intended use. OMB’s guidance further states that verification and validation of performance data support the general accuracy and reliability of performance information, reduces the risk of inaccurate performance data, and provides a sufficient level of confidence to Congress and the public that the information presented is credible as appropriate to its intended use. In addition, our work on performance assessment has identified that data verification helps to ensure that users can have confidence in the reported performance information because it provides a mechanism for assessing data completeness, accuracy, consistency, and timeliness, among other things. NIJ officials stated that they had not taken action to verify performance data because NIJ does not have access to original data to check that data are being reported correctly. As a result, officials stated that they primarily rely on grantees to submit reliable data. Officials also noted that they do not have the resources to systematically verify the reliability of data reported because, on average, each program manager is responsible for monitoring about 200 awards. Officials explained that as part of monitoring efforts—enhanced programmatic desk reviews, site visits, and review of progress reports—program managers will spot-check data for any anomalies and will follow up with grantees in cases where the data seem inaccurate. Ensuring the reliability of the data is especially important in light of the fact that the DNA Backlog Reduction Program is NIJ’s largest investment. Furthermore, NIJ reports performance data in OJP’s annual Performance Budget to show progress in reducing the DNA backlog. Without an approach to verify grantee-reported data, NIJ cannot provide assurance that grantees have valid and auditable source documentation for the data they report, as required by OJP. In addition, NIJ officials are not required to verify performance data when reviewing progress reports. NIJ estimated that 30 percent of progress reports were sent back to grantees for correction because they contained errors. However, because program managers are not required to verify performance data, NIJ cannot be certain that the remaining 70 percent of progress reports were free of data errors. As a result, NIJ cannot provide a sufficient level of confidence to Congress and the public that performance data associated with the DNA Backlog Reduction Program are reliable enough to show that the program is successfully meeting its goals or reducing the DNA backlog. As part of its site visit monitoring efforts, during which time NIJ officials have access to grantees’ original source data, NIJ could, for example, assess whether additional edit checks are needed to better ensure data are reliable. Although there could be a cost associated with such efforts, defining a cost-effective approach to verify its performance measurement data would better position NIJ to help ensure that it is providing quality information to the public, internal agency officials, and congressional decision makers who play a role in determining where to allocate NIJ funding resources. We also found that the performance measure NIJ uses to measure results of the DNA Backlog Reduction Program may yield an incomplete picture. The performance measure, reported as “percent of reduction in DNA backlog casework,” is a projection of DNA casework that grantees expect to complete as opposed to an actual tabulation of completed cases. Using data submitted by grantees, NIJ calculates the number of cases grantees expect to test with future funding, divided by the DNA casework backlog reported by grantees at the end of the calendar year. In fiscal year 2011, for example, the reported percent reduction was 32.9 percent and was based on a calculation of the estimated number of cases grantees expected to be completed, divided by the total DNA casework backlog. Grantees submit their estimated number of cases to NIJ in their funding applications before they are awarded the grants and begin work. Further, these grantees have up to 3 years to complete their work. NIJ officials explained that reducing the DNA backlog is a DOJ goal in support of GPRA and the agency reports this measure in OJP’s annual Performance Budget. According to officials, the DNA Backlog Reduction Program is NIJ’s program with the most immediate impact in reducing the DNA backlog. However, NIJ’s performance measure does not demonstrate actual results, as required by GPRA, as amended. In addition, NIJ has established a target of 25 percent reduction in DNA backlog casework, which NIJ officials stated that they establish based on historical knowledge. However, NIJ’s target is also a projection of the DNA casework that grantees expect to achieve based on estimates submitted in grantee applications. Our prior work on GPRA states that agencies that were successful in measuring performance strived to establish performance measures that, among other things, enable an organization to assess accomplishments, make decisions, realign processes, assign accountability, and demonstrate results so as to tell each organizational level how well it is achieving its goals. In addition, in our work assessing performance measures, we identified that performance measures should provide useful information for decision making by providing managers and other stakeholders timely, action-oriented information in a format that helps them make decisions that improve program performance. Measures that do not provide managers with useful information will not alert managers and other stakeholders to the existence of problems or help them respond when problems arise. According to NIJ officials, the agency is unable to develop a performance measure that reports actual cases completed (on the fiscal year basis called for in OJP’s annual budget submission) under the DNA Backlog Reduction Program because grantees have up to 3 years to complete their work and the completed number of cases for the entire grant period is not known until the grant period closes. In addition, NIJ officials explained that they would prefer a more meaningful measure, but the current measure captures NIJ’s best guess of the percentage reduction in DNA backlog casework. While measuring annual performance for multi-year grants can be challenging, NIJ could take steps to better assess the results of DNA backlog efforts by analyzing performance data on actual cases completed, which the agency already collects from grantees every 6 months as part of the grantees’ progress reports. In fact, for grants that have not yet closed, NIJ has already started analyzing actual performance data to identify grantees’ annual progress in meeting goals. Such data, once sufficiently reliable, could help NIJ to better assess actual results and develop a more accurate performance measure. Officials from OJP’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer—the office responsible for reporting performance measure information—stated that in order to modify a measure, NIJ would need to propose the change and OJP would submit the proposed revised measure, with approval of other components of DOJ, to OMB in the OJP annual budget submission. By revising its performance measure to include casework actually completed, NIJ will be better situated to provide decision makers with timely, action-oriented information that helps them make decisions that improve program performance or that alerts them to the existence of problems so they can respond to them when they arise. As reported by DOJ, federal funds to address the persisting backlogs of untested DNA samples, among other things, have provided needed support to state and local laboratories to help resolve criminal cases. However, DOJ could take additional steps to improve transparency and better assess results. While NIJ has a process to determine funding priorities, documenting the agency’s rationale for funding allocation decisions, as recommended by standards for internal control in the federal government, NIJ could enhance transparency of the agency’s funding priorities. DOJ has a process in place, as well as a performance measure, to assess results of NIJ’s DNA Backlog Reduction Program, but the agency could verify data and use actual outcomes, as required by federal requirements, to attain reasonable assurance that funds are having a measureable impact in reducing DNA backlogs. We recommend that the Director of NIJ take the following three actions. In order to provide stakeholders and Congress greater transparency regarding its funding allocations, we recommend that the Director of NIJ document the rationale for its annual funding priorities. In order to assist Congress and NIJ management and stakeholders to better assess whether NIJ’s DNA Backlog Reduction Program is having a measurable impact in reducing the DNA backlog, we recommend that the Director of NIJ take the following two actions: develop a cost-effective approach to verify performance data submitted by grantees to provide reasonable assurance that such data are sufficiently reliable to report progress in reducing the DNA backlog, and, revise the “percent of reduction in DNA backlog casework” performance measure to include casework actually completed as part of the measure instead of casework that is projected. We provided a draft of this report to DOJ for review and comment. DOJ provided written comments, which are reproduced in full in appendix II, and technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. DOJ agreed with all three of the recommendations and outlined steps to address them. With respect to the first recommendation, OJP stated that in fiscal year 2014, the Director of NIJ will begin documenting the rationale for the estimated initial allocation of funds appropriated (or anticipated to be appropriated) for DNA analysis and capacity enhancement program efforts, and for other local, state, and federal forensic activities. Regarding the second recommendation, OJP stated that once NIJ revises the performance measure for the NIJ DNA Backlog Reduction Program (in response to our third recommendation), NIJ will begin developing a cost-effective approach to provide reasonable assurance that data collected from grantees, in support of the new or revised performance measure, are sufficiently reliable to report program progress. Finally, for the third recommendation, OJP stated that the Director of NIJ will undertake efforts to revise the performance measure for the NIJ DNA Backlog Reduction Program and anticipates that the new or revised performance measure will reflect actual cases competed. OJP also noted that the new or revised performance measure will be subject to review and/or approval of other DOJ components as the well as the Administration. We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General, appropriate congressional committees, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-4841, mackinm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) National Institute of Justice (NIJ) was appropriated about $691 million from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 for the DNA and forensic program, which is administered by its National Institute of Justice (NIJ). NIJ awarded almost two-thirds of all funds—or about 63 percent—to either state or local units of government from the DNA and forensic program appropriation for fiscal years 2008 through 2012, as seen in figure 4. Of the about $691 million, about $442 million, or 64 percent, went to directly benefit state and local units of government to reduce the DNA backlog. Of the $442 million, about 96 percent, or about $422 million, was allocated directly to either state or local units of government through NIJ’s DNA backlog initiatives, including NIJ’s DNA Backlog Reduction Program. Three percent—or about $14 million—was awarded to public universities to conduct DNA analyses and increase lab capacity on behalf of state and local governments, and an additional 1 percent—about $6 million—was awarded to for-profit businesses to conduct similar analyses for certain populations of DNA samples. Approximately $212 million of $691 million was awarded to various entities for purposes that do not directly support state and local governments’ efforts to reduce the DNA backlog, but for which there may be an indirect benefit to the reduction of DNA backlogs. For example, of the $212 million, public colleges and universities received about $63 million for initiatives that do not directly benefit state and local government efforts to reduce DNA backlogs. See table 3. In addition to the contact named above, Dawn Locke (Assistant Director), Joel Aldape, Brian Lipman, and Jeremy Manion made significant contributions to the work. Also contributing to the report were Michele Fejfar, Grant Mallie, Jessica Orr, and Janet Temko.

Summary: Since 2008, Congress has appropriated more than $100 million each year to the Department of Justice (DOJ) that may be used, among other things, to reduce DNA backlogs and enhance crime laboratory capacity. NIJ, within DOJ, is responsible for, among other things, providing awards for DNA analysis and forensic activities. NIJ's DNA Backlog Reduction Program was established to provide grants to state and local governments with the intent, in part, of reducing the backlog of DNA samples. The conference report accompanying the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012, mandated GAO to examine, among other things, DNA analysis funds. This report addresses (1) how NIJ has allocated its DNA and forensic program appropriation over the past 5 fiscal years, (2) the extent that NIJ has a process to determine its funding priorities for its DNA and forensic program appropriation, and (3) the extent that NIJ verifies data on grant results submitted by grantees and measures the outcomes of the DNA Backlog Reduction Program. GAO reviewed relevant appropriations, NIJ funding documentation, and data from fiscal years 2008 through 2012, and interviewed NIJ officials. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) allocated funding for various DNA and other forensic science activities, with the majority of the available $691 million from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 going to state and local governments to reduce the DNA backlog. Specifically, over this 5-year period, 64 percent was allocated through initiatives that directly benefit state and local efforts to reduce DNA backlogs and build DNA analysis capacity. The largest initiative was NIJ's DNA Backlog Reduction Program, and other DNA backlog initiatives included DNA analysis of cold cases, among others. A smaller portion (31 percent) went to other forensic sciences initiatives, such as research and development and training, although NIJ officials stated that funding these initiatives may have long-term benefits for reducing the DNA backlog. The remainder of the funding went toward other activities, such as management and administration. NIJ has a process in place to determine DNA and forensic program funding priorities, but its decisions regarding these priorities are not clearly documented. According to NIJ officials, the rationale for funding the DNA Backlog Reduction Program versus other initiatives is documented in briefing slides, but these documents do not show NIJ's rationale for how funding priorities are determined. For example, while the budget documents for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 show the final amounts NIJ decided to allocate to various initiatives, these documents do not provide details on the justifications for how funding levels were determined for each initiative. Without a clearly documented process that demonstrates the rationale for NIJ's annual funding priorities, there is limited transparency regarding how and why the agency is allocating its funding. NIJ could verify data and revise its performance measure to better assess the DNA Backlog Reduction Program. NIJ assesses performance of this program by requiring grantees to submit reports every 6 months that, in part, outline their progress in meeting program goals and objectives. However, NIJ does not have an approach to verify the reliability of the data--testing data to ensure data quality--and as a result, faces continuing data errors. Verifying these data would help ensure that the data are reliable enough to show that the program is successfully meeting its goals. In addition, NIJ has a performance measure to assess the results of this program--percent of reduction in DNA backlog casework--but it is a projection of DNA casework that grantees expect to complete as opposed to an actual tabulation of completed cases. While measuring annual performance for multiyear grants can be challenging because the completed number of cases is not known until after the grant period closes, taking steps to analyze performance data on actual cases completed could help NIJ to better assess actual results. GAO recommends that NIJ clearly document the rationale for annual funding priorities, develop a cost-effective approach to verify the reliability of grantee performance data, and revise its performance measure to reflect actual completed cases. DOJ agreed with GAO's recommendations and outlined steps to address them.