OJP, the grant-making arm of DOJ, provides grants to various organizations, including state and local governments, universities, and private foundations, that are intended to develop the nation’s capacity to prevent and control crime, administer justice, and assist crime victims. OJP’s Assistant Attorney General is responsible for overall management and oversight of OJP through setting policy and for ensuring that OJP policies and programs reflect the priorities of the President, the Attorney General, and the Congress. The Assistant Attorney General promotes coordination among the various bureaus and offices within OJP, including BJA, one of the five bureaus within OJP, and VAWO, one of OJP’s seven program offices. In fulfilling its mission, BJA provides grants for site- based programs and for training and technical assistance to combat violent and drug-related crime and help improve the criminal justice system. VAWO administers grants to help prevent, detect, and stop violence against women, including domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Since 1996, OJP’s budget has increased substantially, following the passage of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.Figure 1 shows changes to OJP’s budget from fiscal year 1990 through fiscal year 2000 and compares those changes in relation to BJA’s budget over the same period and VAWO’s budget since its inception in 1995. One of BJA’s major grant programs is the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program. Under the Byrne Discretionary Grants Program, BJA provides federal financial assistance to grantees for educational and training programs for criminal justice personnel; technical assistance to state and local units of government; and projects that are replicable in more than one jurisdiction nationwide. In fiscal year 2000, BJA awarded 99 Byrne discretionary grants worth about $69 million. VAWO was created in 1995 to carry out certain programs created under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Prevention Act of 2000 reauthorized most of the exisiting VAWO programs and added new programs as well. VAWO’s mission is to lead the national effort to end violence against women, including domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. VAWO programs seek to improve criminal justice system responses to these crimes by providing support for law enforcement, prosecution, courts, and victim advocacy programs across the country. In addition, programs are to enhance direct services for victims, including victim advocacy, emergency shelter, and legal services. VAWO also addresses violence against women issues internationally, including working to prevent trafficking in persons. In fiscal year 2000, VAWO awarded 425 discretionary grants worth about $125 million. Appendix I discusses the growth in OJP, BJA, and VAWO budgets and provides information on the number and amount of BJA and VAWO discretionary grants awarded from fiscal year 1990 to fiscal year 2000. To meet our objectives, we conducted our work at OJP, BJA, and VAWO headquarters in Washington, D.C. We reviewed applicable laws and regulations and OJP, BJA, and VAWO policies and procedures for awarding and managing grants, and we interviewed responsible OJP, BJA, and VAWO officials, including grant managers. As agreed with your offices, we focused on monitoring activities associated with the Byrne and VAWO discretionary grant programs. In particular, we focused on grant monitoring for grants that were active during fiscal years 1999 and 2000 and supported a program or theme, rather than technical assistance or training efforts. To address our first objective, concerning OJP’s process and requirements for discretionary grant monitoring, we reviewed applicable laws and regulations and OJP policies and procedures for grant administration and grant monitoring. We also interviewed OJP, Comptroller, BJA, and VAWO staff. We obtained information about the Comptroller’s Control Desk, which maintains the official grant files and is responsible for receiving, distributing, and tracking grant documents, including financial and progress reports. To address our second objective regarding the extent to which BJA and VAWO documented their monitoring activities for discretionary grants, we reviewed representative samples of official grant files and grant manager files using a data collection instrument to record whether evidence of the required monitoring activity—progress reports, financial reports, and other required documents—were included in the files. For each grant, we also reviewed the most recent award covering 12 months to examine the documentation of specific monitoring requirements and activities, such as telephone calls and site visits. Specifically, we reviewed a random sample of 46 of 110 Byrne and 84 of 635 VAWO discretionary grants that had a program theme and were active throughout fiscal year 1999 or 2000. The results of the samples are representative of the populations from which they were drawn. We express our confidence in the precision of our sample results as a 95-percent confidence interval. Unless otherwise noted, all confidence intervals are less than or equal to plus or minus 10 percentage points. In regard to grantee financial and progress reports, we reviewed all available reports for the BJA and VAWO discretionary grants included in our sample from the initiation of the grant through December 31, 2000. We determined timeliness using dates recorded on reports compared with the specified intervals when they were supposed to be received. Also, to determine whether BJA and VAWO closeout procedures were implemented in accordance with OJP policy, we reviewed those grant files in our sample when the grant end date was between September 30, 1999, and August 31, 2000. For our review, we focused on required closeout documentation, such as precloseout contacts, closeout checklists, and final financial and progress reports. To address our third objective, regarding how BJA and VAWO determine compliance with OJP monitoring requirements, we requested information on any existing oversight and review processes relating to grant monitoring at BJA and VAWO and gathered and reviewed documentation that BJA and VAWO officials provided concerning their oversight processes. We also met with BJA and VAWO officials to obtain information on any new initiatives they had to address the oversight and management of their grants. To meet our fourth objective, on OJP’s efforts to identify and address grant management problems, we met with OJP officials to discuss their efforts, and we reviewed reports and documents they had prepared about the new Grant Management System (GMS), revisions to the OJP Handbook and associated decision documents, and other initiatives. In addition, we reviewed the DOJ Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Plan and information on grant management developed by the DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General. Finally, to obtain information on the size and growth of BJA and VAWO grant programs within the context of OJP, we obtained and analyzed budget and resource data from OJP on grant funds and programs from fiscal years 1990 through 2000. We conducted our work between October 2000 and October 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We requested comments on a draft of this report from DOJ on October 24, 2001. Its comments are discussed near the end of this letter and are reprinted as appendix III. DOJ also provided technical comments that were incorporated in the report. After BJA and VAWO award discretionary grants, OJP policies require them, in coordination with Office of the Comptroller, to monitor grants and related activities and document the monitoring results. Monitoring is done to ensure compliance with relevant statutes, regulations, policies, and guidelines; responsible oversight of awarded funds; implementation of approved programs, goals, objectives, tasks, products, time lines, and schedules; identification of issues and problems that may impede grant implementation; and implementation of adjustments by the grantee as approved by BJA or VAWO. The OJP Handbook is the basic reference for OJP policies and procedures for the administration of OJP grants, including discretionary grant monitoring. According to the Handbook, each grant manager is to prepare a monitoring plan as part of a grant manager’s memorandum recommending initial or continuation funding. The level of monitoring is to be based on the stated monitoring plan in the grant manager’s memorandum. The plan is to contain information on who will conduct the monitoring, how it will be done, and when and what type of monitoring activities are planned. Monitoring information is to be collected using such techniques as on-site visits, telephone calls, and desk reviews, which are reviews to ensure that the grant files are complete and the grantee is in compliance with the program guidelines. In addition, grant managers are to review grantee program and financial progress reports. According to OJP’s Handbook, grantees are required to submit periodic progress reports that summarize project activities to aid program and grant managers in carrying out their responsibilities for grant-supported activities. Likewise, grantees are required to submit periodic financial status reports to update OJP on how grant funds are being spent. In addition, OJP requires that grant managers close out the grant when the project period ends to ensure that the agency has received all required financial, programmatic, and audit reports and that all federal funds have been accounted for. OJP bureaus and program offices, such as BJA and VAWO, are to carry out the program (nonfiscal) monitoring aspects of the grants they award. During fiscal year 2000, BJA had approximately 20 program managers responsible for the monitoring activities for most nonformula BJA grants. Generally, each BJA program manager had responsibility for monitoring 25 to 40 discretionary grants, including those under the Byrne program. VAWO had 13 program managers, each of whom had responsibility for the program monitoring aspects for about 60 VAWO grants, including VAWO discretionary grants. The Office of the Comptroller has primary responsibility for monitoring the fiscal aspects of all OJP-awarded grants, including those awarded by BJA and VAWO. To assess grantee financial records, the Comptroller’s Monitoring Division is to perform risk-based, on-site financial reviews for a sample of grantee organizations to monitor administrative and financial capability.