Juvenile Justice: Selected Issues Relating to OJJDP's Reauthorization
(Testimony, 05/08/96, GAO/T-GGD-96-103).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO discussed its review of the
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), focusing
on issues related to its management and grant administration. GAO noted
that: (1) communication and coordination between the Office of Justice
Programs and its components has improved, but components' independent
statutory authority may impede future coordination efforts; (2) OJJDP
onsite monitoring of formula grants was generally timely, but it may
change its procedures to increase the frequency of site visits; (3) in
fiscal years (FY) 1993 through 1995, OJJDP awarded 162 new discretionary
grants that covered a variety of program areas; (4) these discretionary
grants ranged from $3.1 million for a 3-year project to $31,448 for an
18-month project; (5) to implement its discretionary grant program,
OJJDP sets program goals and priorities, publicizes available grant
programs and solicits grant applications, evaluates applications through
initial and peer reviews, and awards and monitors grants; (6) OJJDP
awarded most grants in FY 1993 through 1995 competitively; (7) the OJJDP
peer review process generally resembles the National Institutes of
Health's and the National Science Foundation's processes except in panel
size and structure and in how reviewers are appointed; (8) OJJDP had
monitoring plans for most grants, but little monitoring actually
occurred; and (9) OJJDP makes the results of its grants available
through a contractor database and other electronic forms.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  T-GGD-96-103
     TITLE:  Juvenile Justice: Selected Issues Relating to OJJDP's 
             Reauthorization
      DATE:  05/08/96
   SUBJECT:  Grant administration
             Juvenile delinquency
             Formula grants
             Grant award procedures
             Discretionary grants
             Interagency relations
             Information dissemination operations
             Grants to states
             Crime prevention
             Juvenile offender rehabilitation
IDENTIFIER:  Juvenile Justice Formula Grant
             Discretionary Grant
             OJJDP Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse
             Internet
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Before the Subcommittee on Youth Violence
Committee on the Judiciary
U.S.  Senate

For Release on Delivery
Expected at
10:00 a.m.  EDT
May 8, 1996

JUVENILE JUSTICE:  - SELECTED
ISSUES RELATING TO OJJDP'S
REAUTHORIZATION

Statement of
Laurie E.  Ekstrand
Associate Director,
Administration of Justice Issues
General Government Division

GAO/T-GGD-96-103

GAO/GGD-96-103T


(182016)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  IG - Office of Inspector General
  JJDP - Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
  JMD - Justice Management Division
  LEAA - Law Enforcement Assistance Administration
  LRE - Law-Related Education
  NIH - National Institutes of Health
  NSF - National Science Foundation
  OJARS - Office of Justice Assistance, Research and Statistics
  OJJDP - Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
  OJP - Office of Justice Programs

JUVENILE JUSTICE:  SELECTED ISSUES
RELATING TO OJJDP'S
REAUTHORIZATION
====================================================== Chapter SUMMARY

The goal of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(OJJDP) is to provide national leadership in addressing the issues of
juvenile delinquency and in improving juvenile justice.  OJJDP
operated on a $162 million appropriation in fiscal year 1995 with 71
authorized staff positions.  The Office addresses juvenile justice
issues primarily by administering a range of grants to states,
territories, and public and private organizations.  About 62 percent
of OJJDP's fiscal year 1995 appropriation funded formula grants to
states and territories.  The 57 states and territories participating
in the formula grant program can use the funds to meet juvenile
justice and delinquency prevention needs that they identified in
3-year plans submitted to OJJDP.  OJJDP is to do annual monitoring
visits to each participating state and territory to determine whether
they are doing the activities specified in their plans. 

About 35 percent of OJJDP's fiscal year 1995 appropriation funded
discretionary grants, the Office's primary mechanism for providing
federal assistance directly to public and private juvenile justice
organizations.  The grants are to be awarded to applicants determined
by OJJDP to be the most qualified to do work advertised in grant
solicitations.  Projects funded have been for research, demonstration
projects, and/or training and technical assistance.  OJJDP made 162
new discretionary grant awards for fiscal years 1993 through 1995. 

GAO found that OJJDP had procedures in place for planning,
soliciting, and awarding grants, as well as for auditing and
monitoring activities on grant projects and communicating the results
of the work to interested practitioners and policymakers.  OJJDP is
generally following these procedures.  However, GAO found that some
monitoring procedures were not followed. 

GAO's review of formula grant data between January 1993 and December
1995 showed that on-site program monitoring visits were generally not
done annually, as required by procedures.  The Deputy Administrator
said that the visits did not occur because they are expensive and
time consuming.  He said that OJJDP might need to revise some
procedures, noting that a visit once every 2 years and some interim
telephone monitoring may be more appropriate than annual visits.  In
addition, GAO's review of official discretionary grant files showed
that,

while almost all had plans for monitoring the work, there was little
evidence in the files that monitoring had occurred.  The Deputy
Administrator said that OJJDP would take the necessary steps to
improve its monitoring records. 


JUVENILE JUSTICE:  SELECTED ISSUES
RELATING TO OJJDP'S
REAUTHORIZATION
==================================================== Chapter STATEMENT

Mr.  Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the results of our review of
the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). 
OJJDP is one of five\1 components of the Department of Justice's
Office of Justice Programs (OJP).  In requesting this work, Senator
Hatch and Senator Thompson asked us to cover several management and
grant administration issues to assist you in your deliberations on
OJJDP's reauthorization. 

In accordance with their requests, my testimony covers the following
topics: 

  -- How communication and coordination have evolved between OJP and
     its component offices, including OJJDP.  We will discuss these
     issues within the historic perspective of an organization that
     has experienced frequent change and has diffused decisionmaking
     authority. 

  -- How OJJDP monitors and audits the use of juvenile justice
     formula grants\2 by states and territories. 

  -- What new discretionary grant projects\3 OJJDP has awarded over
     the last 3 fiscal years (fiscal years 1993 through 1995). 

  -- How OJJDP manages its discretionary grants, including processes
     for planning, announcing, and awarding its discretionary grants,
     and how those projects are monitored.  We will also discuss how
     the OJJDP process for outside peer review of discretionary grant
     applications compares to the processes of the National
     Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation
     (NSF). 

  -- How OJJDP communicates the results of the work it sponsors, and
     how those communication processes worked for five judgmentally
     selected discretionary grant projects. 

We did our work primarily at OJP and OJJDP in Washington, D.C.  We
also visited OJJDP contractor facilities in Rockville and Annapolis
Junction, MD, and a discretionary grantee in Albany, NY.  We observed
an audit of the state monitoring system for formula grant use in
Pennsylvania.  We did our work in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.  Appendix I explains our objectives,
scope, and methodology in greater detail. 


--------------------
\1 The other four components are the National Institute of Justice,
the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Bureau of Justice Assistance,
and the Office for Victims of Crime. 

\2 OJJDP formula grants are funds available to states and territories
to assist them in developing programs to improve their juvenile
justice systems and to prevent and control delinquency.  To be
eligible for formula grant funds, states must apply for the program
each year and meet certain requirements in treating juveniles who are
detained in their facilities.  In February 1996, 57 states and
territories were participating in the formula grant program. 

\3 OJJDP discretionary grants are the Office's primary funding
mechanism for providing federal assistance directly to public and
private juvenile justice organizations.  The grants are to be awarded
to applicants determined by OJJDP to be the most qualified to do work
advertised in grant solicitations.  Though small compared to other
programs, the discretionary grant programs of OJJDP and other OJP
offices collectively provide the largest block of discretionary funds
available to Justice for underwriting research and demonstration
projects. 


   BACKGROUND
-------------------------------------------------- Chapter STATEMENT:1

The goal of OJJDP is to provide national leadership in addressing the
issues of juvenile delinquency and in improving juvenile justice. 
Formula grant funding makes up the largest portion of OJJDP's budget. 
In fiscal year 1995 total OJJDP appropriations were $162 million.  As
shown in figure 1, $100 million of this amount (about 62 percent) was
for formula grants, and $57 million (about 35 percent) was for
discretionary grants.  The remaining $5 million (about 3 percent)
covered administrative and other expenses.  According to OJJDP's
Administrative Officer, this included salaries for 71 authorized
full-time equivalent staff positions and funds for travel and other
administrative expenses. 

   Figure 1:  OJJDP's Budget
   Appropriation for FY 1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  GAO analysis of OJJDP
   data.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


   HISTORIC PERSPECTIVE--OJJDP HAS
   UNDERGONE FREQUENT CHANGE
-------------------------------------------------- Chapter STATEMENT:2

OJJDP has been a component of three umbrella offices since it was
established by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of
1974 (JJDP Act).\4 It was originally part of the Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration (LEAA) with responsibility to administer
new juvenile justice grant programs.  In 1979, LEAA was restructured
into the Office of Justice Assistance, Research and Statistics
(OJARS), and, in 1984, into OJP--with OJJDP being a component of each
office.  OJJDP's 22-year history can be characterized by fluctuating
executive branch support and funding levels. 


--------------------
\4 Public Law 93-415, 42 U.S.C.  5601, et seq. 


      EXECUTIVE SUPPORT FLUCTUATED
------------------------------------------------ Chapter STATEMENT:2.1

Executive branch support for OJJDP has fluctuated over the years,
while Congress continued to fund OJJDP.  For example, in 1980, the
administration did not seek funding for OJJDP's umbrella
organization--LEAA--while retaining OJJDP.  Both the 1977
reauthorization and the 1980 amendments to the JJDP Act reflected
overall executive and congressional support for the law and its
implementation. 

Beginning in 1982, OJJDP was targeted for elimination by the
executive branch.  For about 10 years, the administration requested
no funding for OJJDP's juvenile justice programs, but Congress
restored appropriations each year. 


      APPROPRIATIONS LEVELS WERE
      UNSTABLE
------------------------------------------------ Chapter STATEMENT:2.2

As shown in figure 2, OJJDP's funding levels dropped from about $100
million between fiscal years 1978 and 1981 to about $70 million in
1982.  Then, between fiscal years 1982 and 1993, appropriations
remained relatively flat, ranging between $70 million and $88
million.  Appropriations levels increased rather dramatically in
fiscal years 1994 and 1995.  The increases were primarily for funding
new initiatives authorized by 1992 amendments to the JJDP Act. 

The initiatives included new formula grants for states to fund local
delinquency prevention programs and state challenge grants to address
priority programs identified by Congress (e.g., gender-specific
services and aftercare programs for youths released from
confinement).  They also included new discretionary grant programs
for missing and abused children, mentoring of at-risk youths to
improve school performance and prevent delinquent behavior, and
several programs addressing juvenile gang issues.\5

   Figure 2:  OJJDP's Budget
   Appropriations, FYs 1975-1995

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  GAO analysis of OJJDP
   data.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


--------------------
\5 Three programs authorized by the 1992 amendments--juvenile boot
camps, programs for juvenile offenders who are victims of child abuse
or neglect, and a White House conference on juvenile justice--had not
been funded as of April 1996. 


   COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION
   BETWEEN OJP AND ITS COMPONENTS,
   INCLUDING OJJDP, APPEARED TO
   HAVE IMPROVED SINCE THE EARLY
   1990S
-------------------------------------------------- Chapter STATEMENT:3

OJJDP's history has also included conflicts over lines of authority
with OJP.  Justice studies and congressional hearings have attributed
some of that conflict to OJP's organizational structure, as
established by statute.  The organizational structure gives each OJP
component office, headed by a presidential appointee, independent
authority to make grants and formulate budgets. 

Studies by the Justice Management Division (JMD) and Justice's Office
of Inspector General (IG) in 1990 and 1991 documented several
conflicts over authority between OJP and its components, including
OJJDP.  For example, JMD found that OJP's attempts to implement
agencywide comprehensive planning and budget management processes for
fiscal year 1990 generated considerable controversy and objections
within the components.  Also, the IG documented difficulties over
preparation of the fiscal year 1992 budget request.  In preparing a
consolidated budget request, OJP made significant changes to the
funding of certain initiatives that were contained in budget
submissions prepared by the components.  Despite strenuous
disagreement from some component heads, OJP's consolidated budget
presentation was the version accepted by Justice. 

Prompted in part by these reports on management problems, the
Attorney General issued an order in February 1991, which assigned the
Assistant Attorney General for OJP broad policymaking authority. 
Specifically, it gave the Assistant Attorney General authority over
the contract and grant programs of the OJP components.  The House
Subcommittee on Government Information, Justice and Agriculture asked
us to review the legality of the order.\6

We found the Attorney General order to be contrary to statutory
authority.  We concluded that by assigning the Assistant Attorney
General policy-setting authority and countermand authority over the
OJP programs, the order exceeded the Attorney General's "general
authority" over the agency heads; was contrary to components'
statutory "final authority" over grant and contract matters; and
conflicted with the overall statutory scheme. 

According to the current Assistant Attorney General for Justice
Programs, two difficulties arose from the organizational structure of
OJP and its components, including OJJDP: 

  -- First, there are 6 presidential appointee positions in an
     organization of about 530 employees.  She said that the number
     of top-level appointees can in itself become cumbersome and
     duplicative.  Cooperation becomes overly dependent on
     interpersonal relationships among the heads of the components. 

  -- Second, since each component has its own budget and grant-making
     authority and funds are often obligated to multiyear projects,
     components sometimes cannot work together on joint projects
     because one or another of them is not able to commit the money
     at any given time. 

According to interviews with top OJP and OJJDP managers,
communication and coordination between OJP and its components had
improved since the early 1990s.  The managers thought that the
improvements had been the result of the current management team's
interpersonal skills and commitment to cooperation. 

The Assistant Attorney General for Justice Programs said that her
highest priority when she took office was to achieve substantive
coordination among OJP components.  She said that the 1991 Attorney
General order delegating broad policymaking authority to her was
technically in effect, but that it was not followed.  In practice,
she said that OJJDP and other components exercised final control over
grant awards.  She also noted that components prepared their own
publications without OJP review. 

According to OJP's Budget Director, components, including OJJDP,
developed their own annual budget requests on the basis of
departmental guidance, their budget bases from the prior fiscal year,
and Attorney General priorities.  She said that the Assistant
Attorney General would not change an item in a component's budget
request unless the component concurred.  However, OJP budget
officials would let component officials know if they believed an item
would not withstand Department review. 

The Assistant Attorney General and the OJJDP Administrator said that
they believed communication and coordination between OJP and its
component offices had improved.  They cited several examples of
progress made on these issues: 

  -- In fiscal year 1995, OJP published a consolidated volume of the
     program plans for OJJDP and three other components.\7 It was the
     first time since fiscal year 1990 that a consolidated program
     plan had been issued. 

  -- The OJP management team held a series of retreats in 1995 to
     establish goals, priorities, and strategies, and the team
     planned to have similar retreats for longer-term strategic
     planning during 1996. 

  -- More joint projects and working groups were established to deal
     with issues that cross-cut more than one component. 

The Assistant Attorney General said that progress made in interagency
coordination should be institutionalized.  However, in the absence of
statutory changes in OJP's organizational structure, she was
uncertain as to whether the relationships and progress achieved would
be institutionalized, or whether they were the result of solid
working relationships built by one management team that might not be
transferable to another team. 


--------------------
\6 Opinion of the Comptroller General of the United States (B-243175,
Aug.  2, 1991). 

\7 The Bureau of Justice Statistics' plan was not included. 


   OJJDP'S MONITORING OF FORMULA
   GRANTS WAS NOT AS FREQUENT AS
   PROCEDURES REQUIRED, BUT AUDITS
   WERE GENERALLY DONE ON TIME
-------------------------------------------------- Chapter STATEMENT:4

To participate in the formula grant program, states and territories
apply for funding annually and are required to submit 3-year
comprehensive plans on how the formula funds are to be used to meet
their juvenile justice and delinquency prevention needs.  According
to the Handbook of Policies and Procedures for the Administration of
OJP Grants, formula grants made to states and territories are to be
monitored through annual visits to determine whether states are
following the plans they submitted for use of their formula grant
funds. 

OJJDP guidance also requires audits of each formula grant program
every 5 years.  The audits are to determine whether states'
monitoring systems were reporting complete and accurate information
on compliance with requirements that they must meet to be eligible
for formula grants.  Four key requirements for continued eligibility
are that states develop and adhere to policies, practices, and laws
which ensure that (1) juvenile status offenders (e.g., run-aways and
truants) are not detained in secure detention or correctional
facilities; (2) juveniles are not detained or confined in any
institution where they have contact with adult detainees; (3)
juveniles are not detained or confined in adult jails or lockups; and
(4) efforts are made to reduce the disproportionate confinement of
minority youth where it exists. 

Our review of OJJDP data showed that on-site program monitoring
visits were generally not done on an annual basis, as required by OJP
procedures.  The data showed that audits had generally been done for
each participating state and territory within the 5-year period
specified by OJJDP guidance. 


      MONITORING VISITS
------------------------------------------------ Chapter STATEMENT:4.1

Monitoring visits are to determine whether states were doing
activities that they specified in their state plans with the formula
grant funds that they received.  According to OJJDP officials,
monitoring visits are generally no longer than 3 days in duration,
they follow a format prescribed in a monitoring handbook, and written
reports of visits are generally prepared. 

Our review of OJJDP monitoring data showed that on-site program
monitoring visits were generally not done on an annual basis, as
required by OJP procedures.  From January 1993 through December 1995,
a total of 29 on-site visits were made.  If each participating state
and territory had been monitored annually during that period, 171
monitoring visits should have been completed.  Officials noted that
they also met with state formula grant program managers at
conferences, state advisory group meetings, and OJJDP-sponsored
workshops and discussed their programs.  We do not think meetings
with state officials at other functions should be considered as
monitoring visits, where checks are to be made of the states'
adherence to their plans. 

The OJJDP Deputy Administrator said that monitoring visits did not
occur on an annual basis because they are expensive, particularly in
territories, and they are time consuming to do.  In response to our
review, he said that OJJDP officials would consider possible
revisions of monitoring procedures, noting that a visit once every 2
years and some interim monitoring by telephone may be more
appropriate than annual visits to 57 states and territories.  He also
said that follow-up to ensure compliance with any new procedures
implemented would occur. 


      AUDITS
------------------------------------------------ Chapter STATEMENT:4.2

According to officials, audits typically involved about a week of
fieldwork culminating in an exit conference and written report and
are to follow a plan detailed in OJP guidelines.  The audits are to
include reviews of written monitoring procedures that state officials
are to follow, interviews with staff responsible for monitoring, and
inspections to determine whether adequate steps had been taken to
separate juveniles from adults housed in the same facilities.  In
addition, audits are to include verification of compliance data and
checks of facilities' admission and release records to ensure that
the states reported accurate information to OJJDP. 

On the basis of our review of OJJDP data, we found that audits had
been done for most participating states and territories within the
5-year period specified by procedures.  Of 57 states and territories
participating in the program as of February 1996, 44 (77 percent) had
either been audited between January 1991 and March 1996, or audits
were not required because the state had a period of nonparticipation
in the program.  Arrangements were being made to complete at least
three additional audits in 1996.  According to the Deputy
Administrator, efforts will continue to achieve full compliance with
the 5-year audit requirements. 


   OJJDP AWARDED 162 NEW
   DISCRETIONARY GRANTS FOR FISCAL
   YEARS 1993 THROUGH 1995
-------------------------------------------------- Chapter STATEMENT:5

For fiscal years 1993 through 1995, OJJDP data showed that it awarded
162 new discretionary grants.  Funded projects covered a variety of
program areas.  They were for (1) research on juvenile justice
issues; (2) demonstration projects testing new approaches to
delinquency prevention, treatment, and intervention; (3) training and
technical assistance to juvenile justice practitioners; or (4) a mix
of these activities. 

Forty-one of the 162 awards provided funds to grantees at
demonstration sites nationwide to develop juvenile mentoring
programs.  The program was designed to match adults in one-to-one
relationships with young people who were having difficulty in school. 
The goals were to improve student participants' academic performance,
reduce school drop-out rates, and prevent delinquent behavior. 
Grantees included hospitals, Boys and Girls Club chapters, and Big
Brother and Big Sister chapters.  Funding was for July 1995 through
June 1998, with 4,000 young people in 25 states expected to
participate. 

Other discretionary grant awards went to colleges and universities;
state and local government offices, including public school systems
and courts; and nonprofit organizations.  All regions of the nation
were represented. 

Project periods for the 162 awards made in the 3-year period ranged
from about 1 year to about 9 years, with the average period running
about 2 years.  The highest individual award amount was about $3.1
million for a 3-year project providing services at a national center
for missing and exploited children in Arlington, VA.  The services
included a toll-free hotline, case management and analysis,
publication development, and photo distribution and age progression
for missing children.  The smallest award amount was $31,448 for an
18-month project to research, publish, and disseminate a law
enforcement manual containing federal and state laws relating to
missing children.  The grant was also to fund the development of a
training program and 13 training sessions to provide information on
the basis of the research.  We did not calculate an average award
amount because some of the new grants awarded during the period of
our review were incomplete and were scheduled to have other funds
awarded in future fiscal years. 

In a May 1996 correspondence,\8 we provided the Subcommittee with a
list of all of the discretionary grants awarded during the 3 fiscal
years by program category, including descriptions of each grant and
information on the grantee, project period, and funds awarded as of
March 1996.  In instances where more than one grant was awarded for
the same project over the period of our review, we combined award
amounts and project descriptions.  Appendix II provides examples of
discretionary grants for research, demonstration projects, and
training and technical assistance. 


--------------------
\8 OJJDP Discretionary Grant Programs (GAO/GGD-96-111R, May 7, 1996). 


   OJJDP'S PROCESS FOR
   IMPLEMENTING ITS DISCRETIONARY
   GRANT PROGRAM
-------------------------------------------------- Chapter STATEMENT:6

OJJDP manages its discretionary grants by setting goals and
priorities for the programs and publicizing available grant programs. 
It then obtains assistance from peer review panels to evaluate grant
applications, makes final grant award decisions, and monitors the
work of the grantees.  According to OJJDP officials, appropriations
delays slowed the process of soliciting applications for
discretionary grants this fiscal year. 

As shown in figure 3, the key parts of OJJDP's process for planning
and announcing discretionary grants are issuance of a program plan;
issuance of discretionary program announcements; and distribution of
application kits.  As shown in figure 4, the key parts of the grant
application and review process include initial screening of
applications by the OJJDP program manager, peer review of
applications, and final selection of applications for funding by the
OJJDP administrator. 

   Figure 3:  OJJDP's Process for
   Planning and Announcing Grant
   Programs

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  GAO analysis of OJJDP
   documents and interviews with
   OJJDP staff.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure 4:  Overview of OJJDP
   Grant Application and Review
   Process

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  GAO analysis of OJJDP
   documents and interviews with
   OJJDP staff.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


      PROGRAM PLAN IS TO DESCRIBE
      GOALS AND PRIORITIES
------------------------------------------------ Chapter STATEMENT:6.1

The program plan is to describe OJJDP's goals and priorities for the
fiscal year and its discretionary grant programs.  OJJDP is required
by law to publish a proposed program plan in the Federal Register. 
After a 45-day comment period and before December 31 of each fiscal
year, OJJDP is to publish a final plan. 

According to an official, the OJJDP program plan was generally
drafted by the administrator and senior managers and was based on
congressional and departmental priorities, their knowledge and
experience, and input during the course of the year from a variety of
sources.  As described in the Federal Register, these sources of
input included program reviews by OJJDP staff and comments from
practitioners in the field, officials from Justice and OJP
components, and other federal agencies.  The final program plans are
also to take into consideration comments received during the 45-day
public comment period on the proposed plan. 


      PROGRAM ANNOUNCEMENTS AND
      APPLICATION KITS ARE TO
      SOLICIT APPLICANTS FOR
      PROGRAMS
------------------------------------------------ Chapter STATEMENT:6.2

Following publication of the final program plan, OJJDP is to publish
in the Federal Register a notice of competitive discretionary grant
programs and to announce the availability of an application kit.  The
notice is to include the availability of funds, criteria for
selection of applicants, procedures applicable to the submission and
review of applications for assistance, and information on how to
obtain an application kit. 

Subsequent to issuance of final program announcements, an OJJDP
official said that application kits are to be mailed to interested
parties through its contractor-operated Juvenile Justice
Clearinghouse.  According to the official, about 10,000 copies of the
application kit were printed for fiscal year 1995, and about the same
number are expected to be printed in fiscal year 1996. 


      PEER REVIEW PANELS ARE TO
      HELP DETERMINE WHICH
      APPLICATIONS ARE FUNDED
------------------------------------------------ Chapter STATEMENT:6.3

Upon receipt of discretionary grant applications, the OJJDP program
manager is to perform an initial review on each of them, using an
application review checklist.  The objective of this initial review
is to determine whether applications are complete and eligible for
federal funding. 

By statute, OJJDP is to have a formal peer review process for its
discretionary grant programs.  The statute also required that, in
establishing its peer review process, OJJDP consult with the
directors of the National Institute of Mental Health, a part of NIH,
and NSF and submit their final peer review plan to those officials
for formal comment. 

OJJDP's peer review process is to be advisory--to supplement and
assist the consideration of applications by OJJDP.  However, an
official noted that, in practice, results of the peer review panels'
consideration of applications were almost always accepted by OJJDP. 

OJJDP contracted out the administrative arrangements (e.g., arranging
panels and notifying reviewers) for the peer review of its
discretionary grant applications.  The contractor maintained a list
of qualified consultants from which peer reviewers were selected by
OJJDP.  In December 1995, the list contained more than 600 names. 
Peer reviewers were recommended for projects by the OJJDP grant
program manager overseeing the project.  The OJJDP administrator also
had the option of selecting reviewers or asking the grant manager for
additional names.  Once the selection was made by OJJDP, the
contractor was to make arrangements with individuals selected to do
the reviews of the projects.  According to an OJJDP official,
consultants performing peer reviews were reimbursed at a flat rate of
$150 a day, as established by the Administrator. 

OJJDP guidance required that the program manager use the following
criteria to help achieve balance on the peer review panel: 

  -- Each reviewer should have expertise in or complementary to the
     subject area under review. 

  -- Where possible, the peer review panel should be composed of a
     mix of researchers, practitioners, and academicians. 

  -- Panel members should be drawn from as wide a geographic area as
     practical. 

  -- Special attention should be paid to obtaining qualified
     representation from women and minority groups. 


      COMPETITION, PEER REVIEW
      OCCURRED FOR ALMOST ALL
      DISCRETIONARY GRANTS AWARDED
      THAT WE REVIEWED IN FISCAL
      YEARS 1993 THROUGH 1995
------------------------------------------------ Chapter STATEMENT:6.4

We reviewed files for 81 of 162 new discretionary grants awarded in
fiscal years 1993 through 1995.  All but two of the grants we
reviewed were awarded competitively.\9 In 75 of the 81 instances, 3
or more proposals were peer reviewed. 

Peer reviewers reviewed and scored proposals in six categories:  (1)
conceptualization of the problem; (2) goals and objectives (i.e., are
they program specific, clearly defined, and easily measurable); (3)
project design; (4) implementation; (5) organizational capability;
and (6) budget. 

Peer review panels were composed of three panelists in all of the
cases we reviewed.  In instances in which a large number of proposals
were submitted, peer review followed a two-step process.  First,
reviewers did evaluations by mail.  Second, reviewers convened as a
panel for discussions and scoring of proposals. 

Biographical data for 60 peer reviewers on panels for the grants that
we reviewed showed that they were professionals in the criminal
justice field representing geographic regions nationwide.  They
included academicians; a judge; researchers; and practitioners, such
as juvenile justice project directors and program administrators. 
Twenty-eight percent of the peer reviewers in our sample were
minorities, and 47 percent were women. 


--------------------
\9 In one of the instances in which a grant was awarded
noncompetitively, the record stated that expertise to do the project
was available from only one source.  In the other instance, a grantee
was awarded a noncompetitive continuation grant. 


      FINAL DECISIONS TO AWARD
      DISCRETIONARY GRANTS
------------------------------------------------ Chapter STATEMENT:6.5

After completion of the peer review panels, OJJDP is to do a second
internal review of the applications.  It is to consider review
comments from peer reviewers and other program offices.  The OJJDP
manager of the discretionary grant program is to make formal
recommendations concerning applications to receive funding in a
memorandum to the administrator, and the administrator is to make
tentative grant selections.  The OJP Comptroller is to do a financial
review of these applications to determine whether the applicant has
the necessary resources and integrity to account for and administer
federal funds properly, and whether budget and cost data in the
application were allowable, effective, and reasonable.  Final awards
are to be made by the OJJDP administrator. 


      APPROPRIATIONS DELAYS HAVE
      SLOWED DISCRETIONARY GRANT
      SOLICITATIONS AND PROJECT
      FUNDING IN FISCAL YEAR 1996
------------------------------------------------ Chapter STATEMENT:6.6

According to an OJJDP official, delays in enactment of annual
appropriations measures have resulted in difficulties in publishing a
program plan according to established time frames.  If significant
delays occur, it becomes difficult to complete the steps in the grant
application, review, and award process before the end of the fiscal
year.  OJJDP's program plan for fiscal year 1996 was published in the
Federal Register on February 20, several months later than the
official said is the normal time frame for publication.  Because
OJJDP was operating under a continuing resolution, which is a
short-term spending measure, funding amounts were not included in the
plan.  In comparison, the proposed comprehensive plan for fiscal year
1995 was published on December 30, 1994, with preliminary funding
amounts for each program included. 

According to an OJJDP official, appropriations delays also slowed
funding for some multiyear discretionary grant projects during the
first 5 months of fiscal year 1996.  When appropriations are
authorized in the beginning of a fiscal year, continuation funds are
awarded once for the full fiscal year.  In the first 5 months of
fiscal year 1996, some partial awards were made for ongoing projects
that had exhausted funds needed to continue operating.  The official
noted that funding grants in this manner results in additional
paperwork.  The fiscal year 1996 appropriation was enacted on April
26, 1996.  The appropriation level, $162 million, was about the same
as the fiscal year 1995 level. 


      COMPARISON OF OJJDP PEER
      REVIEW TO PEER REVIEWS BY
      NIH AND NSF
------------------------------------------------ Chapter STATEMENT:6.7

We compared the peer review processes of NIH and NSF to those of
OJJDP to note similarities and differences among these agencies.  We
found the following similarities among peer review processes at
OJJDP, NIH, and NSF: 

  -- the decisions of the peer reviewers were advisory;

  -- written criteria for selecting reviewers promoted balanced
     review selection in terms of race, gender, and region; and

  -- reviewers evaluated and scored applications on the basis of
     written criteria. 

Key differences we found among peer review processes at the three
agencies were in the size and structure of peer review panels and in
the methods of appointing peer reviewers.  NIH peer reviewers served
on panels for up to 4 years.  Officials said that this approach
allowed for the selection of top experts as panelists.  In contrast,
NSF and OJJDP registered large numbers of peer reviewers and called
upon each infrequently to serve as reviewers.  According to an OJJDP
official and a researcher, this approach allowed for a broad base of
opinions and limited the possibility of reviewers developing biases
toward particular potential grantees. 

NIH used a dual peer review system.  The initial level of review was
to evaluate the scientific and technical merit of applications.  It
involved panels of experts selected according to scientific
disciplines or research areas.  Initial review groups were composed
of about 16 members appointed for 4-year terms.  The second level of
review was to evaluate applications again on scientific merit and on
relevance to the program and priorities.  Second-tier reviewers were
also appointed for 4-year terms and included scientists and
government policy personnel.  These panels generally met about three
times a year.  A typical second-tier panel at NIH included 12 to 15
panelists. 

According to officials, NSF used three methods of external peer
reviews:  review by mail; review by panel; and a combination of mail
and panel review.  In all types of panel reviews, reviewers were
asked to address the merits of ideas, the capacity of the research
leaders and teams to do the work, and the likelihood of wide use of
potential research results.  About 50,000 reviewers were used
annually.  They were selected from a list of about 216,000 potential
reviewers.  Panels were typically composed of 8 to 12 members.  Mail
reviews involved about 10 reviewers. 


      OFFICIAL GRANT FILES
      REVIEWED GENERALLY CONTAINED
      MONITORING PLANS BUT LITTLE
      EVIDENCE THAT MONITORING
      OCCURRED
------------------------------------------------ Chapter STATEMENT:6.8

According to OJP policy, information on discretionary grant
monitoring and related activities is to be maintained in official
grant files.  Of the 131 new discretionary grants awarded for fiscal
years 1993 through 1995 that we reviewed, files for 129 grants
contained plans by program managers for monitoring the work. 
Monitoring plans included such activities by the grant manager as
making quarterly telephone calls or on-site visits to grantees and
reviewing interim and final products.  In addition, grantees were
usually expected to submit quarterly program and financial progress
reports for review by program managers. 

We found little evidence in the files we reviewed that monitoring had
occurred as planned.  None of the files had documentation of
telephone contacts, site visits, or product reviews.  No quarterly
program and financial reports were included in 11 of the 78 files for
which projects had been ongoing for at least 2 quarters at the time
of our review, and 1 or more reports were missing from another 61
files.  Only 6 of the 78 files had program and financial reports for
all quarters of work completed. 

The OJJDP Deputy Administrator said that quarterly program and
financial reports were to be submitted by grantees to remain eligible
for funding, and he thought that the missing reports had been
submitted but had not been filed in official grant files as they
should have been.  He also noted that reports of monitoring visits
should have been placed in grant files.  He said that written records
of routine monitoring by telephone were not required.  The Deputy
Administrator noted that OJJDP discretionary grant program managers
are responsible for overall program management, not just monitoring,
and that the large workload may result in the lack of monitoring
records.  As a result of our review of monitoring data, he said that
OJJDP would take the necessary steps to improve monitoring records. 


   HOW OJJDP COMMUNICATED
   DISCRETIONARY GRANT RESULTS
-------------------------------------------------- Chapter STATEMENT:7

OJJDP and other OJP components participate in a contract negotiated
by the National Institute of Justice with Aspen Systems, Inc., to
handle several aspects of communicating the results of the work that
it sponsors.  According to the Contract Coordinator, Aspen Systems
has done this work for about 18 years under a competitive procurement
contract that is rebid every 3 to 4 years.  Each OJP component
participating in the contract funds a share of the annual contract
award amount of about $7 million. 

Tasks performed by the contractor for OJJDP include providing
publications support (e.g., editing services), acquiring documents,
and operating information booths at conferences.  In addition, the
contractor operates a toll-free telephone line and an Internet
mailbox to assist with information requests; manages mailing lists;
and assembles, collates, distributes, and stores documents. 

In our review to determine how research results were communicated, we
reviewed the following five grants, which were completed in fiscal
year 1995:  (1) Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of
Juvenile Delinquency--a longitudinal research study conducted in
three states; (2) Funding Support for Specific Program Development
for a State Clearinghouse for Missing Children--a training and
technical assistance grant; (3) County-wide Youth Gang Prevention
Project--Malheur County--a demonstration project; (4) National
Juvenile Hate Crime Study--a research grant; and (5) American Bar
Association Symposium on International Child Abduction--a training
and technical assistance grant. 

Overall, we found that these OJJDP grants resulted in a variety of
types of final products, including research summaries, fact sheets,
technical reports and technical appendixes, reference manuals,
training curricula, reports and executive summaries, comprehensive
resource manuals, and symposiums.  These products are available to
interested parties through the Electronic Bulletin Board System, the
Internet, DIALOG, CD-ROM, and the contractor document database and
library collection. 

According to contractor data, requesters for these grant final
products were affiliated with a wide range of organizations
including:  OJJDP, the Office for Victims of Crime, OJP, other
Department of Justice agencies, Congress, other federal agencies,
state and local planners, police departments, youth services
organizations, corrections offices, courts, criminal justice and
juvenile justice commissions and professional associations, other
professional associations, legislatures, U.S.  military departments,
international users, researcher organizations, faculties/students,
community organizations, medias/publishers, foundations, public
interest groups, the general public, corporations, and consultants. 

Appendix III shows detailed communication information for each OJJDP
grant included in our sample. 


------------------------------------------------ Chapter STATEMENT:7.1

This concludes my statement.  I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have. 


OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I

As agreed with the Committee and Subcommittee, our objective was to
provide the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Youth Violence with
descriptive information on the operations of OJJDP.  We addressed the
following issues: 

  -- What communication and coordination takes place between OJP and
     its component offices, including OJJDP, within the historic
     perspective of an organization that has experienced frequent
     change and has diffused decisionmaking authority? 

  -- How does OJJDP monitor and audit the use of juvenile justice
     formula grant funds by states and territories? 

  -- What new discretionary grants did OJJDP award during fiscal
     years 1993 through 1995?  What were the program categories,
     titles of grants, grantees, project descriptions, proposed
     project periods, and dollars awarded for these grants as of
     March 1996? 

  -- How does OJJDP manage its discretionary grants, including
     processes for planning, announcing, and awarding the grants and
     for monitoring grantees' performance? 

  -- How does OJJDP communicate the results of the work it sponsors? 

We also compared OJJDP's processes for peer review of grant
applications with the processes used by NIH and NSF. 

To determine the level of communication and coordination that exists
between OJP and component offices, including OJJDP, we interviewed
the Assistant Attorney General for OJP and the OJJDP Administrator. 
We also reviewed documentation of management retreats, consolidated
program plans, and other examples of efforts by OJP and its
components, including OJJDP, to communicate and coordinate.  We
relied on prior reports issued by GAO and Justice's Office of
Inspector General and Justice Management Division for an historic
perspective on this issue. 

To determine how OJJDP monitors and audits the use of juvenile
justice formula grant funds by participating states and territories,
we reviewed written procedures for monitoring visits and audits, and
we interviewed OJJDP officials and program managers.  To determine
whether monitoring visits and audits were occurring within
established time periods, we examined documentation of the dates
these actions were last completed in each participating state and
territory.  We also observed a 4-day audit of Pennsylvania's
monitoring system for formula grant use during the week of March 4,
1996.  We did not evaluate the quality or completeness of the
monitoring visits and audits that were done. 

To determine what new discretionary grants OJJDP had awarded during
fiscal years 1993 through 1995, we obtained a list of the grants from
OJJDP.  Using a data collection instrument, we then collected
information from official grant files for 131 of the 162
discretionary grants awarded during this period.  Forty-one awards
were made for juvenile mentoring demonstration programs at various
locations nationwide.  We reviewed a random sample of 10 of them.  We
reviewed all 121 of the other discretionary awards made over the
3-year period.  This information is summarized in the testimony.  A
complete list of the awards made, including program and project
descriptions, grant titles, grantees, proposed project periods, and
dollars awarded as of March 1996, was provided to the Subcommittee in
a May correspondence.\1 In instances where more than one grant was
awarded for the same project over the period of our review, we
combined award amounts and project descriptions. 

To determine how OJJDP managed its discretionary grants program, we
interviewed program officials and reviewed procedural manuals,
Federal Register announcements, and grant application kits.  We also
reviewed contractor files at Aspen Systems, Inc., in Rockville, MD,
which documented peer reviews of selected grant applications.  We
reviewed documentation on 81 of the 162 new grants awarded during
fiscal years 1993 through 1995.  The 81 files we reviewed were
judgmentally selected on the basis of their availability.  They
included a mix of grants awarded in each of the 3 years.  We also
reviewed biographical data on 60 peer reviewers who served on the
panels that made these grant awards.  To compare OJJDP's peer review
process with processes used by NIH and NSF, we interviewed officials
of these organizations and reviewed their written procedures.  We did
not verify the processes used at NIH and NSF. 

For the portion of OJJDP's management of discretionary grants
covering the monitoring of projects selected for award, we reviewed
its written procedures.  As part of our review of 131 new grants
awarded during fiscal years 1993 through 1995, we also documented
monitoring plans and records of monitoring that had occurred.  We did
not evaluate the quality of monitoring done.  We observed a
monitoring visit to grantees at the State University of New York at
Albany, NY, in February 1996 to discuss progress on a longitudinal
study of the causes and correlates of delinquency. 

To determine how OJJDP communicated the results of discretionary
grant projects, we interviewed program officials.  We visited
contractor facilities at Aspen Systems, Inc., in Rockville and
Annapolis Junction, MD.  These facilities handled communications
functions for OJJDP, including compiling mailing lists; answering
telephone requests for information; and distributing and storing
publications. 

We also reviewed a judgmental sample of four completed discretionary
projects and one ongoing longitudinal study to determine what
products had resulted from the work, how the results were
communicated, and to how many and what types of requesters (i.e.,
policymakers, practitioners, students, etc.) they were distributed. 
These projects were selected to obtain a variety of types of grants
and grant amounts and a diversity of geographic regions. 

Our work was done between November 1995 and April 1996 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

On April 19, 1996, we obtained oral comments from the Deputy
Administrator and Administrative Officer of OJJDP on this testimony. 
These agency officials generally agreed with the information
presented in this testimony and provided comments that we
incorporated as appropriate. 


--------------------
\1 GAO/GGD-96-111R. 


EXAMPLES OF VARIOUS TYPES OF OJJDP
DISCRETIONARY GRANTS
========================================================== Appendix II

The following are examples of various types of OJJDP discretionary
grants.  For summary information on all 162 discretionary grants
awarded during fiscal years 1993 through 1995, see our May
correspondence (GAO/GGD-96-111R, May 7, 1996). 

The following is an example of a research grant: 

  -- A program of research on the causes of delinquency.  This
     program has been ongoing at three universities since 1986 with
     funding from OJJDP, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and
     the NSF.  The studies have tracked at-risk youths and their
     parents through interviews and analysis of data, including
     school and police records.  The young people, who lived in
     Rochester, NY; Denver, CO; and Pittsburgh, PA, were 7 to 15
     years old when they began participating in the project.  In the
     1995-96 time period, they were about 17 to 25 years old. 
     According to a researcher involved with the project since its
     inception, it is the most extensive research done on at-risk
     youths.  The project is currently incorporating the experiences
     of three generations of participating families because some of
     the youths had become parents. 

The research assisted in development of a comprehensive strategy by
OJJDP for prevention and intervention in the careers of serious,
violent, and chronic offenders.  The strategy included prevention
services for at-risk youths and their families and graduated
sanctions for offenders. 

An example of a grant for a demonstration project follows: 

  -- Grants demonstrating law-related education (LRE) programs.  LRE
     is a curriculum for elementary and secondary school students
     that teaches commitment to good citizenship and skills such as
     alternative dispute resolution, peer mediation, and conflict
     resolution.  In 1990, OJJDP began funding LRE programs for
     at-risk youths.  Demonstration projects funded in the review
     period included those for a bilingual program; a course for
     youths leaving correctional facilities to return to high-risk
     environments; and 1-week LRE summer camp sessions for at-risk
     middle school youths. 

The following is an example of a grant to provide training and
technical assistance: 

  -- An award to the California Department of Justice to provide
     training to users of an on-line missing and unidentified persons
     system.  In addition to giving 13 training sessions, project
     results were to include the research, publication, and
     dissemination of a law enforcement manual containing federal and
     state laws relating to missing children. 


COMMUNICATION OF RESEARCH RESULTS
FOR FOUR PROJECTS
========================================================= Appendix III

                                                            Total number of
Grant title         Product type        Requestor type      products requested
------------------  ------------------  ------------------  --------------------
Program of          Research summary    State and local     21,410
Research on the                         legislators,
Causes and                              policymakers,
Correlates of                           youth service
Juvenile                                providers, and
Delinquency                             juvenile justice
                                        researchers

                    Fact sheet          State and local     4,170
                                        legislators,
                                        policymakers,
                                        youth service
                                        providers, and
                                        juvenile justice
                                        researchers

                    Technical report    State and local     112
                                        legislators,
                                        policymakers,
                                        youth service
                                        providers, and
                                        juvenile justice
                                        researchers

Funding Support     Reference manual    Unknown\a           Unknown\a
for                 and training
Specific Program    curriculum
Development for
State
Clearinghouse
for Missing
Children

National Juvenile   Fact sheet          State and local     388
Hate                                    legislators,
Crime Study                             policymakers, law
                                        enforcement
                                        officials, and
                                        victim service
                                        providers

                    Executive summary   Planned             N/A
                    and full report     distribution,
                                        spring 1996

American Bar        Compendium          State and local     427
Association                             organizations,
Symposium on                            professional
International                           associations,
Child                                   educators, and
Abduction                               students

                    Promotional flyer   Variety of related  28,568
                                        interest groups
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend

N/A = Not applicable

\a The reports have been borrowed from the National Criminal Justice
Reference Service library and copied; therefore, the number cannot be
quantified. 

Source:  GAO analysis of OJJDP data. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS
TESTIMONY
========================================================== Appendix IV


   GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION,
   WASHINGTON, D.C. 
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:1

Weldon McPhail, Assistant Director, Administration of Justice
 Issues
Deborah A.  Knorr, Project Manager
Patricia J.  Scanlon, Deputy Project Manager
Dennise R.  Stickley, Staff Evaluator
Anna T.  LittleJohn, Secretary
David P.  Alexander, Senior Social Science Analyst
Katherine M.  Wheeler, Publishing Advisor
Pamela V.  Williams, Communications Analyst


   OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL,
   WASHINGTON, D.C. 
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:2

Ann H.  Finley, Senior Attorney


*** End of document. ***