This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-13-605 
entitled 'Justice Grant Programs: DOJ Could Improve Decision-Making 
Documentation and Better Assess Results of DNA Backlog Reduction 
Program Funds' which was released on July 31, 2013. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

July 2013: 

Justice Grant Programs: 

DOJ Could Improve Decision-Making Documentation and Better Assess 
Results of DNA Backlog Reduction Program Funds: 

GAO-13-605: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-13-605, a report to congressional committees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

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. 

What GAO Found: 

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. 

What GAO Recommends: 

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. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-605]. For more 
information, contact Michele Mackin at (202) 512-4841 or 
MackinM@gao.gov. 

[End of table] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

NIJ Has Allocated Funding for Various DNA and Other Forensic Science 
Activities, and the Majority Goes Directly to Reducing the DNA Backlog: 

NIJ Has a Process in Place to Determine DNA and Forensic Program 
Funding Priorities, but Decisions Are Not Clearly Documented: 

Verification of Data Reliability and Revision of Its Performance 
Measure Could Help NIJ Better Assess Performance of the DNA Backlog 
Reduction Program: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Recipients of Awards Made by the National Institute of 
Justice for the DNA and Forensic Program, Fiscal Years 2008 through 
2012: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Justice: 

Appendix III: GAO Contact Staff and Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: National Institute of Justice DNA and Forensic Program 
Initiatives Funded to Directly Benefit State and Local Government 
Efforts to Reduce the DNA Backlog and Build Laboratory Capacity, 
Fiscal Years 2008-2012: 

Table 2: National Institute of Justice DNA and Other Forensic Sciences 
Initiatives That Do Not Directly Benefit State and Local Governments 
in Reducing the DNA Backlog, Fiscal Years 2008-2012: 

Table 3: Recipients of NIJ DNA and Forensic Program Appropriation, 
Fiscal Years 2008-2012: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Allocation of Funding of DNA and Forensic Program 
Appropriations for Initiatives and Other Costs, Fiscal Years 2008-2012: 

Figure 2: Annual Percentage of Funds Provided for DNA Backlog 
Reduction Program and other DNA Backlog Initiatives, Fiscal Years 2008-
2012: 

Figure 3: Proportion of Funds Allocated for Forensic Science 
Initiatives not Directly Benefiting State and Local Efforts to Reduce 
the DNA Backlog, Fiscal Years 2008-2012: 

Figure 4: Recipients of Grants and Other Awards Funded through the DNA 
and Forensic Program Appropriation, Fiscal Years 2008-2012: 

Abbreviations: 

DOJ: Department of Justice: 

GMS: Grants Management System: 

GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act: 

NIJ: National Institute of Justice: 

OJP: Office of Justice Programs: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

TWG: Technology Working Group: 

[End of section] 

GAO:
United States Government Accountability Office: 
441 G St. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

July 31, 2013 Congressional Committees Since 2008, Congress has 
appropriated more than $100 million each year to the Department of 
Justice (DOJ) that may be used to reduce DNA backlogs and enhance 
crime laboratory capacity. Among other things, these funds are 
intended to be used for DNA analysis and capacity enhancement, as well 
as other forensic activities, such as research and development in 
crime scene blood spatter or footprint impressions. The Office of 
Justice Programs (OJP), established by the Justice Assistance Act of 
1984, is the primary grant-making arm of DOJ. Within OJP, the National 
Institute of Justice (NIJ), the research arm of DOJ, is responsible 
for evaluating programs and policies that respond to crime, and 
providing and administering awards for DNA analysis and forensic 
activities, among other criminal justice activities. 

DOJ officials have reported that while federal funding has been made 
available to state and local governments to reduce DNA backlogs, the 
demand for DNA testing continues to exceed the capacity of 
laboratories to process these samples. According to DOJ, the reasons 
for the backlog include (1) the increased amount of DNA evidence that 
already has been collected in criminal cases, and (2) expanded efforts 
by federal and state governments to collect DNA samples from convicted 
offenders and arrested persons. As reported by state and local 
laboratories funded by DOJ, NIJ estimated that in 2011--the most 
recent estimate--the year-end backlog for DNA evidence collected from 
crime scenes was approximately 91,000 cases, and additional crimes can 
be committed by serial offenders as analysis of evidence is delayed. 
NIJ's DNA Backlog Reduction Program (DNA Backlog Reduction Program) 
provides grants to state and local governments with the intent, among 
other things, of reducing the backlog of DNA samples.[Footnote 1] 

In making appropriations to DOJ for "DNA-related and forensic programs 
and activities," Congress has specified the amounts to be obligated 
for specific programs and activities. For example, DOJ has been 
directed to use a large portion of the funds for "a DNA analysis and 
capacity enhancement program and for other local, State, and Federal 
forensic activities, including the purposes authorized under section 2 
of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (the Debbie Smith 
DNA Backlog Grant Program)." Throughout this report, we refer to these 
latter funds as the 'DNA and forensic program appropriation.' 

The conference report accompanying the Consolidated and Further 
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012--appropriating funds for DOJ and 
various other agencies--mandated GAO to examine the use of funds 
awarded for DNA analysis and capacity enhancement for the past 5 
years.[Footnote 2] 

To carry out the mandate, we addressed the following questions: 

* How has NIJ allocated its DNA and forensic program appropriation 
over the past 5 fiscal years? 

* To what extent does NIJ have a process to determine its funding 
priorities for its DNA and forensic program appropriation? 

* To what extent does NIJ verify data on grant results submitted by 
grantees and measure the outcomes of the DNA Backlog Reduction Program? 

To determine how NIJ allocated DNA and forensic program funds, we 
reviewed relevant appropriations from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 
and compared related NIJ expenditures and award data for the same time 
period.[Footnote 3] Specifically, to determine the amount of the 
appropriation that went to DNA backlog reduction purposes or other 
forensic science purposes, we reviewed NIJ awards and expenditure data 
using DOJ and OJP financial systems that track expenditures, OJP's 
electronic system for grant management, and hard copies of awards not 
contained in the electronic grant system. Using the awards' purpose 
statements, we categorized the awards into those used for DNA backlog 
reduction purposes, other DNA-related efforts and those used for other 
forensic sciences purposes. We then solicited and incorporated input 
from NIJ officials to verify how we categorized each award. We 
assessed the reliability of these data by conducting electronic 
testing of the data and interviewing NIJ's managers responsible for 
the data. We determined the data were sufficiently reliable for the 
purposes of determining how NIJ allocated DNA and forensic program 
funds. 

To determine the extent to which NIJ has a process to determine 
funding priorities for its DNA and forensic program appropriation, we 
reviewed NIJ documentation outlining NIJ's annual process for 
determining annual funding priorities. The available documentation 
consisted of briefing slides for fiscal years 2008 through 2011 and 
budget memos for fiscal years 2012 and 2013. We also interviewed NIJ 
officials knowledgeable about the agency's annual funding priority 
process. We compared NIJ's processes with requirements for documenting 
key decisions outlined in the Standards for Internal Control in the 
Federal Government.[Footnote 4] 

To determine the extent to which NIJ verifies data on grant results 
submitted by grantees and measures the outcome of its DNA Backlog 
Reduction Program, we reviewed NIJ performance information collected 
from grantees from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 used to assess the 
results of this program, as well as guidance NIJ provided to grantees 
on reporting performance data. We also reviewed OJP policies and 
guidance outlining monitoring requirements for assessing grantee 
progress and performance. To gain a better understanding of NIJ's 
monitoring efforts, we reviewed monitoring documents for a sample of 
11 awards--including 8 grants, 1 contract, and 2 interagency 
agreements[Footnote 5]--to include different NIJ-funded efforts, such 
as the DNA Backlog Reduction Program and other forensic science 
efforts. Although our review of this sample cannot be generalized to 
all of NIJ's monitoring efforts, it helped to inform our understanding 
of NIJ's efforts to assess results and measure performance. We also 
interviewed NIJ officials responsible for assessing performance and 
outcomes of the DNA Backlog Reduction Program. We compared NIJ's 
efforts with OJP data reporting requirements[Footnote 6] for complying 
with the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA). 
[Footnote 7] We also compared NIJ's efforts with requirements for 
verifying data and assessing performance outlined in Office of 
Management and Budget guidance, GPRA, and our prior work.[Footnote 8] 

We conducted this performance audit from June 2012 to July 2013 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

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. 

Funding Mechanisms: 

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. 

* Grants[Footnote 9] 

- 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[Footnote 10] is the only formula grant 
program awarded through the DNA and forensic program appropriation. 
[Footnote 11] 

- 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.[Footnote 12] 

* Nongrants: 

- 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. 

Initiatives: 

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 1: National Institute of Justice DNA and Forensic Program 
Initiatives Funded to Directly Benefit State and Local Government 
Efforts to Reduce the DNA Backlog and Build Laboratory Capacity, 
Fiscal Years 2008-2012: 

Formula discretionary grant funding: 

Initiative: DNA Backlog Reduction Program; 
Description of DNA backlog initiative: Formula discretionary grant 
funding: Awards available to state and local units of government to, 
among other things, reduce the backlog of DNA samples for criminal 
justice purposes. Such awards may provide funding for technicians to 
work overtime and to obtain DNA analysis supplies, among other things. 
Funding amounts are based primarily on the violent crime rate in the 
state from 2 years prior to the grant's award, with each state 
receiving a minimum amount. 

Other discretionary backlog funding: 

Initiative: Convicted Offender and/or Arrestee DNA Backlog Reduction 
Program; 
Description of DNA backlog initiative: Formula discretionary grant 
funding: Awards provided to eligible states to analyze DNA samples 
from certain convicted offenders and arrestees to be uploaded to the 
National DNA Index System maintained by the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation that stores DNA profiles to enable laboratories to 
compare these profiles from DNA samples collected during the 
investigation process nationwide; This program ended during fiscal 
year 2010 and was subsumed into the DNA Backlog Reduction Program in 
2011. 

Initiative: Solving cold cases with DNA; 
Description of DNA backlog initiative: Formula discretionary grant 
funding: Awards provided to states and local units of government to 
identify, review, and investigate violent crime cold cases that have 
the potential to be solved using DNA analysis. A cold case refers to 
any unsolved criminal case for which all significant investigative 
leads have been exhausted. 

Initiative: Using DNA to identify the missing; 
Description of DNA backlog initiative: Formula discretionary grant 
funding: Awards to assist eligible entities in performing DNA analysis 
on unidentified human remains and samples from family members of 
missing persons, or to help identify missing persons. 

Initiative: Forensic DNA unit efficiency improvement; 
Description of DNA backlog initiative: Formula discretionary grant 
funding: Awards provided to states and local units of government to 
perform studies for implementing novel, capacity-enhancing 
technologies and processes into their DNA laboratories. 

Initiative: Convicted offender private lab analysis; 
Description of DNA backlog initiative: Formula discretionary grant 
funding: Contracts provided directly to private laboratories to assist 
states in reducing their convicted offender and arrestee DNA sample 
analysis backlogs. Contracts are administered by the Office of Justice 
Programs. 

Source: GAO analysis of NIJ information. 

[End of table] 

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. 

Table 2: National Institute of Justice DNA and Other Forensic Sciences 
Initiatives That Do Not Directly Benefit State and Local Governments 
in Reducing the DNA Backlog, Fiscal Years 2008-2012: 

Initiative: Research, development, and evaluation; 
Description of forensic sciences initiative: Awards to provide 
qualified entities funding to conduct basic or applied scientific 
research to increase knowledge of forensic science disciplines, 
including but not limited to DNA analytical methods. Funding is also 
used to evaluate current forensic science processes and programs, 
including the technical aspects of DNA analysis as well the practical 
effects of current forensic science policy on the criminal justice 
community. 

Initiative: Forensic science training; 
Description of forensic sciences initiative: Awards to provide 
educational opportunities to state and local practitioners in forensic 
science disciplines, including relevant criminal justice partners. 
Such areas of forensic science include DNA analysis, trace evidence 
such as explosives detection, and pattern evidence such as ballistics 
identification, among others. 

Initiative: Centers of excellence; 
Description of forensic sciences initiative: Awards provided to 
qualified entities to provide technical and scientific support to 
crime laboratories, law enforcement, and other criminal justice 
agencies. Such support includes testing, evaluation, technology 
assistance and other services. 

Initiative: National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs) 
project and support; 
Description of forensic sciences initiative: Awards provided to 
support the development, administration, and management of NIJ's NamUs 
system, a national data repository and resource center for missing 
persons and unidentified decedent remains. The database is available 
to states and local units of government as well as the general public. 

Initiative: Technical assistance; 
Description of forensic sciences initiative: Awards provided to 
support elements of NIJ's mission related to forensic science for 
activities such as support for DOJ's criminal justice research 
website, providing scientific editorial activities, and providing 
forensic science education to policymakers to help them address the 
modern use of DNA analysis to improve the administration of justice. 

Initiative: Meetings and conferences; 
Description of forensic sciences initiative: Funding considered a part 
of technical support for practitioners at the state, local, and 
federal levels to hold forensic science related summits. According to 
NIJ officials, such meetings and conferences are instrumental in 
developing communities to help adopt new forensic science methods 
among practitioners. 

Source: GAO analysis of NIJ information. 

[End of table] 

Monitoring: 

OJP policy directs that monitoring be performed to assess the 
performance of programs that support NIJ initiatives. For example, for 
grants, during programmatic monitoring,[Footnote 13] 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. 

NIJ Has Allocated Funding for Various DNA and Other Forensic Science 
Activities, and the Majority Goes Directly to Reducing the DNA Backlog: 

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. 
[Footnote 14] The appropriations language was broad and enabled NIJ to 
allocate funding for a variety of forensic programs at funding levels 
established by the agency.[Footnote 15] 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.[Footnote 16] 
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.[Footnote 17] 
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.[Footnote 18] See figure 1. 

Figure 1: Allocation of Funding of DNA and Forensic Program 
Appropriations for Initiatives and Other Costs, Fiscal Years 2008-2012: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

NIJ DNA Backlog Reduction Program: formula grants available to state 
and local units of government to reduce the backlog of DNA samples for 
criminal justice purposes: 50%. 

Other DNA backlog initiatives: awards addressing specific DNA backlog 
populations or lab capacity needs, such as unsolved cold case samples 
and samples collected from convicted offenders: 14%. 

[64%: DNA backlog initiatives] 

Initiatives for other forensic science purposes: awards to support DNA 
and other forensic sciences, such as detecting drugs and explosives, 
which do not directly reduce the backlog. Such awards may be for 
researching new technology or providing forensic science training: 31%. 
Initiatives not directly benefiting state and local DNA backlog 
efforts. 

Other: expenditures such as Office of Justice Programs management and 
administration costs like salaries, training, and travel, among other 
things: 6%. 

Source: GAO analysis of NIJ grants, nongrant awards, and other 
appropriation information. 

Note: Other expenditures included $27 million assessed for management 
and administration of OJP activities, about $2 million transferred to 
other research and statistics accounts, and about $9 million adjusted 
at the end of fiscal years through statutory rescissions, for example. 
OJP assessments are not limited to DNA and forensic program activities 
but may include OJP-wide costs for training, travel, and computer 
infrastructure. Percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding. 

[End of figure] 

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.[Footnote 19] 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. 

Figure 2: Annual Percentage of Funds Provided for DNA Backlog 
Reduction Program and other DNA Backlog Initiatives, Fiscal Years 2008-
2012: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Year: 2008; 
Awards and expenditures not directly reducing DNA backlog: 36.1%; 
Other DNA backlog initiatives: 21.6%; 
DNA Backlog Reduction Program: 42%; 
Total annual dollars available for obligation (rounded to the nearest 
million): $147 million. 

Year: 2009; 
Awards and expenditures not directly reducing DNA backlog: 41%; 
Other DNA backlog initiatives: 20.1%; 
DNA Backlog Reduction Program: 39%; 
Total annual dollars available for obligation (rounded to the nearest 
million): $152 million. 

Year: 2010; 
Awards and expenditures not directly reducing DNA backlog: 42.5%; 
Other DNA backlog initiatives: 13.4%; 
DNA Backlog Reduction Program: 44%; 
Total annual dollars available for obligation (rounded to the nearest 
million): $153 million. 

Year: 2011; 
Awards and expenditures not directly reducing DNA backlog: 67.7%; 
Other DNA backlog initiatives: 3.6%; 
DNA Backlog Reduction Program: 29%; 
Total annual dollars available for obligation (rounded to the nearest 
million): $131 million. 

Year: 2012; 
Awards and expenditures not directly reducing DNA backlog: 63.2%; 
Other DNA backlog initiatives: 9.2%; 
DNA Backlog Reduction Program: 28%%; 
Total annual dollars available for obligation (rounded to the nearest 
million): $118 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of NIJ grants, nongrant awards, and other 
appropriation information. 

Note: Annual amounts available for obligation do not add to the total 
amount appropriated for the 5-year period of approximately $691 
million because annual amounts carried over to the next fiscal year 
and increased the funding OJP and NIJ could obligate beyond the 
enacted appropriation. 

[End of figure] 

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.[Footnote 20] 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. 

Figure 3: Proportion of Funds Allocated for Forensic Science 
Initiatives not Directly Benefiting State and Local Efforts to Reduce 
the DNA Backlog, Fiscal Years 2008-2012: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Initiatives not directly benefiting state and local DNA backlog 
efforts: 31%: 

Research, development, and evaluation ($114.7 million) Awards to 
conduct basic or applied scientific research to increase knowledge of 
forensic science disciplines, including but not limited to DNA 
analysis methods: 17%; 

Forensic science training ($44.4 million) Awards to provide 
educational opportunities to criminal justice partners in forensic 
science disciplines, such as DNA analysis and trace evidence: 6%; 

Centers of Excellence ($25 million) Awards to provide technical and 
scientific support such as testing, evaluation, and technology 
assistance: 4%; 

Technical assistance ($14.1 million) Awards provided to support NIJ’s 
mission to foster forensic science activities, such as support for 
DOJ’s criminal justice research website, and providing scientific 
editorial activities: 2%; 

NamUs missing persons project ($11.4 million) NIJ-supported database 
available to states and local units of government to support the 
identification of missing individuals and unidentified remains: 2%; 
Meetings and conferences ($2 million) Funding considered a part of 
technical support for practitioners at the state, local, and federal 
levels to hold forensic science–related summits: less than 1%; 

Remaining appropriation($479.9 million): 69%. 

Source: GAO analysis of NIJ grants, nongrant awards, and other 
appropriation information. 

Note: Totals are rounded to the nearest $0.1 million, and percentages 
are rounded to the nearest percent. 

[End of figure] 

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.[Footnote 21] 
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 to Determine DNA and Forensic Program 
Funding Priorities, but Decisions Are Not Clearly Documented: 

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.[Footnote 22] 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.[Footnote 23] 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.[Footnote 24] Qualified proposals submitted in response to a 
competitive solicitation are subjected to a peer review process and 
evaluated for their scientific merit.[Footnote 25] 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. 
[Footnote 26] 

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. 

Verification of Data Reliability and Revision of Its Performance 
Measure Could Help NIJ Better Assess Performance of the DNA Backlog 
Reduction Program: 

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, but Verifying Performance Data Could Help 
NIJ Better Assess Results: 

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. [Footnote 27] 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.[Footnote 28] 

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.[Footnote 29] 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.[Footnote 30] OMB's guidance further states 
that verification and validation[Footnote 31] 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.[Footnote 32] 

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. 
[Footnote 33] 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. 

NIJ's Performance Measure Includes Estimated, but Not Actual Outcomes 
of the DNA Backlog Reduction Program: 

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.[Footnote 
34] 

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.[Footnote 35] 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.[Footnote 36] 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. 

Conclusions: 

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 measurable impact in reducing DNA 
backlogs. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

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. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

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 
[hyperlink, 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. 

Signed by: 

Michele Mackin: 
Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management: 

List of Committees: 

The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski: 
Chairwoman: 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Richard C. Shelby: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Frank R. Wolf: 
Chairman: 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Chaka Fattah: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
House of Representatives: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Recipients of Awards Made by the National Institute of 
Justice for the DNA and Forensic Program, Fiscal Years 2008 through 
2012: 

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).[Footnote 37] 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. 

Figure 4: Recipients of Grants and Other Awards Funded through the DNA 
and Forensic Program Appropriation, Fiscal Years 2008-2012: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Recipient: States; 
Total dollars received: $260.1 million; 
Percentage: 38%. 

Recipient: Local units of government; 
Total dollars received: $175.3 million; 
Percentage: 25%. 

Recipient: Public colleges and universities; 
Total dollars received: $76.3 million; 
Percentage: 11%. 

Recipient: Nonprofit organizations; 
Total dollars received: $57.4 million; 
Percentage: 8%. 

Recipient: For-profit businesses; 
Total dollars received: $43.3 million; 
Percentage: 6%. 

Recipient: Other federal agencies; 
Total dollars received: $28.5 million; 
Percentage: 4%. 

Recipient: Private colleges and universities; 
Total dollars received: $12.3 million; 
Percentage: 2%. 

Recipient: Other; 
Total dollars received: $38.2 million; 
Percentage: 6%. 

Total: $691.5 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of NIJ grants, nongrant awards, and other 
appropriation information. 

Note: Totals are rounded to the nearest $0.1 million, including the 
total appropriation. Totals do not equal to $691 million because of 
rounding. "Other" includes expenditures for management and 
administration assessments, and adjustments, transfers, or carryovers. 

[End of figure] 

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.[Footnote 
38] 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. 

Table 3: Recipients of NIJ DNA and Forensic Program Appropriation, 
Fiscal Years 2008-2012: 

Recipient of Funds: State units of government; 
Directly benefiting state and local DNA backlog efforts: $257,979,499; 
Not directly benefiting state and local DNA backlog efforts: 
$2,145,645; 
Recipient Totals: $260,125,144. 

Recipient of Funds: Local units of government; 
Directly benefiting state and local DNA backlog efforts: $164,096,921; 
Not directly benefiting state and local DNA backlog efforts: 
$11,237,848; 
Recipient Totals: $175,334,769. 

Recipient of Funds: Public colleges and universities; 
Directly benefiting state and local DNA backlog efforts: $13,715,861; 
Not directly benefiting state and local DNA backlog efforts: 
$62,603,059; 
Recipient Totals: $76,318,920. 

Recipient of Funds: Nonprofit organizations; 
Directly benefiting state and local DNA backlog efforts: 0; 
Not directly benefiting state and local DNA backlog efforts: 
$57,400,607; 
Recipient Totals: $57,400,607. 

Recipient of Funds: For-profit Businesses; 
Directly benefiting state and local DNA backlog efforts: $5,858,676; 
Not directly benefiting state and local DNA backlog efforts: 
$37,426,044; 
Recipient Totals: $43,284,721. 

Recipient of Funds: Other federal agencies; 
Directly benefiting state and local DNA backlog efforts: 0; 
Not directly benefiting state and local DNA backlog efforts: 
$28,488,746; 
Recipient Totals: $28,488,746. 

Recipient of Funds: Private colleges and universities; 
Directly benefiting state and local DNA backlog efforts: 0; 
Not directly benefiting state and local DNA backlog efforts: 
$12,270,010; 
Recipient Totals: $12,270,010. 

Recipient of Funds: Management and administration assessed by OJP; 
Directly benefiting state and local DNA backlog efforts: 0; 
Not directly benefiting state and local DNA backlog efforts: 0; 
Recipient Totals: $26,538,740. 

Recipient of Funds: Adjustments, transfers, or carryover; 
Directly benefiting state and local DNA backlog efforts: 0; 
Not directly benefiting state and local DNA backlog efforts: 0; 
Recipient Totals: $11,707,855. 

Recipient of Funds: Total; 
Directly benefiting state and local DNA backlog efforts: $441,650,957; 
Not directly benefiting state and local DNA backlog efforts: 
$211,571,960; 
Recipient Totals: $691,469,511. 

Source: GAO analysis of NIJ grants, awards, and other appropriation 
information. 

Note: Amounts for management and administration assessments and 
adjustments, transfers, or carryover represent other funds that were 
not awarded through an NIJ initiative. Therefore, these amounts did 
not specifically address DNA backlog or other forensic science 
efforts. Amounts for categories do not equal totals because of 
rounding to the nearest dollar. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Justice: 

U.S. Department of Justice: 
Office of Justice Programs: 
Washington, D.C. 20531: 

July 12, 2013: 

Ms. Michele Mackin: 
Director: 
Acquisition and Sourcing Management: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Mackin: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled, "Justice Grant 
Programs: DOJ Could Improve Decision-Making Documentation and Better 
Assess Results of DNA Backlog Reduction Program Funds" (GAO-13-605). 
The U.S. Department of Justice (Department) appreciates the GAO's work 
in planning and conducting this review, and issuing the draft report.
The draft GAO report contains three Recommendations for Executive 
Action to the Department, which are restated in bold text below and 
are followed by our response. 

1. 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. 

The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) agrees with the Recommendation 
for Executive Action. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2014, the Director of 
the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) will document the rationale 
for the estimated initial allocation of funds appropriated (or 
anticipated to be appropriated, as has often been the case) for a DNA 
analysis and capacity enhancement program, and for other local, State, 
and Federal forensic activities. Please note that the final 
allocations, among the various NIJ programs and activities related to 
DNA and other forensics, are reflected in the awards ultimately made, 
late in the fiscal year, and are based on such factors as: the amount 
of the appropriation as enacted; the needs of the forensic science 
community; the number and overall quality of the applications received 
under the various programs; and the results of rigorous peer reviews 
(other than in the case of the NIJ DNA Backlog Reduction Program, 
which is administered through an NIJ formula). 

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: 

2. 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. 

OJP agrees with the Recommendation for Executive Action. The Director 
of NIJ will develop a cost-effective approach for verifying 
performance data submitted by grantees under the NIJ DNA Backlog 
Reduction Program, in order to provide reasonable assurance that such 
data are sufficiently reliable to report program progress. As 
indicated in the response to Recommendation 3 below, OJP and NIJ also 
plan to revise the performance measure for the NIJ DNA Backlog 
Reduction Program. Accordingly, once the performance measure for the 
NIJ DNA Backlog Reduction Program is revised, and based on a 
reexamination of its current procedures for review of performance data 
submitted by grantees, NU will begin development of a cost-effective 
approach to reasonably assure that data collected from grantees for 
the new/revised performance measure are sufficiently reliable to 
report program progress. 

3. 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. 

OJP agrees with the Recommendation for Executive Action to revise the 
performance measure. The Director of NIJ will undertake efforts to 
revise the performance measure for the NIJ DNA Backlog Reduction 
Program. Subject to the review and/or approval by other components of 
the Department and the Administration, NIJ anticipates that the 
new/revised performance measure will reflect actual cases (or samples, 
or DNA profiles, or other pertinent work) completed under the NIJ DNA 
Backlog Reduction Program, and also take into consideration existing 
complexities such as those posed by lag times in receiving data. 

If you have any questions regarding this response, you or your staff 
may contact Maureen Henneberg, Director, Office of Audit, Assessment, 
and Management, at (202) 616-3282. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Karol V. Mason: 
Assistant Attorney General: 

cc: 
Tony West: 
Acting Associate Attorney General: 

Anna Martinez: 
Senior Advisor to the Associate Attorney General: 
Office of the Associate Attorney General: 

Mary Lou Leary: 
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General: 

James H. Burch, II: 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Operations and Management: 

Gregory Ridgeway: 
Acting Director: 
National Institute of Justice: 

Leigh Benda: 
Chief Financial Officer: 

Maureen Henneberg: 
Director: 
Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management: 

Rafael A. Madan: 
General Counsel: 

Charles Moses: 
Deputy General Counsel: 

Melodee Hanes: 
Acting Director: 
Office of Communications: 

Richard P. Theis: 
Director, Audit Liaison Group: 
Internal Review and Evaluation Office: 
Justice Management Division: 

OJP Executive Secretariat: 
Control Number 20130923: 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: GAO Contact Staff and Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Michele Mackin, (202) 512-4841, or mackinm@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

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. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Grantees of this program can use funding to analyze cases 
containing DNA evidence or can analyze samples of DNA evidence taken 
from convicted offenders or arrested individuals, or both, in 
accordance with state laws. Grantees may also use funds to increase 
laboratory capacity. 

[2] H.R. Rep. No. 112-284, at 247 (Conf. Rep.). During the time period 
of our review from fiscal years 2008 through 2012, Congress 
appropriated funds for other programs that related to DNA analysis in 
state and local units of government. However, the scope of this review 
focused only on the specific appropriation available for "DNA analysis 
and capacity enhancement." 

[3] We included in our definition of "DNA and forensic program 
appropriation" amounts for fiscal years 2008 through 2012, although 
the appropriation language for fiscal year 2008 differed to some 
extent. 

[4] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] 
(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

[5] Grants are provided to eligible entities, such as state and local 
governments, to conduct DNA analysis or research, among other things. 
Contracts are official agreements with various non-government entities 
to perform services. Interagency agreements are awards provided to 
other federal agencies. 

[6] Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of the 
Chief Financial Officer, 2011 Financial Guide (Washington, D.C.: July 
2012). 

[7] Pub.L.No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285, as amended by the GPRA 
Modernization Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866. Under 
GPRA, agencies are required to hold programs accountable to Congress 
and the public by establishing performance goals, identifying 
performance measures used to indicate progress toward meeting the 
goals, and using the results to improve performance as necessary. 

[8] Office of Management and Budget, Circular No. A-11: Preparation, 
Submission, and Execution of the Budget, (Washington, D.C.: August 3, 
2012); GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government 
Performance and Results Act, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-96-118] (Washington, D.C.: June 1, 
1996); The Results Act: An Evaluator's Guide to Assessing Agency 
Annual Performance Plans, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-10.1.20] (Washington, D.C.: April 
1998); Performance Plans: Selected Approaches for Verification and 
Validation of Agency Performance Information, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-99-139] (Washington, D.C.: July 
30, 1999). 

[9] During the period of this review, from fiscal years 2008 through 
2012, the vast majority of grants provided by NIJ through this 
appropriation were a form of grant called a cooperative agreement. 
Cooperative agreements are similar to grants, the primary difference 
being that cooperative agreements include substantial involvement by 
the agency in carrying out the activity in the agreement. See 31 
U.S.C. § 6305. For the purposes of this report, we refer to these 
agreements as grants. 

[10] The purposes of the NIJ DNA Backlog Reduction Program were 
generally similar to the purposes of section 2 of the DNA Analysis 
Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant 
Program, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 14135) had during the fiscal years we 
reviewed. During that period, the authorizing language for the Debbie 
Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program provided authority to DOJ to make 
grants to state and local governments for several different purposes, 
and directed DOJ to award specific percentages of the funds for 
certain of these purposes; for example, 40 percent was to carry out 
DNA analyses of samples from crime scenes. 42 U.S.C. § 14135 (a)(2), 
(c)(3). However, because the DNA and forensic program appropriation 
did not appropriate funds under the authorization for the Debbie Smith 
DNA Backlog Grant Program, these directives did not apply and DOJ was 
not required to award a specific percentage of available funds to the 
NIJ DNA Backlog Reduction Program or for any purpose specified in the 
statute for the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program. 

[11] The formula is set by DOJ and is based primarily on the violent 
crime rate in each state from 2 years prior to the grant's award. 

[12] NIJ's policy also allows for non-competitive awards when (1) only 
one applicant can perform the work of the proposed award; (2) the NIJ 
director has determined in writing that urgent, or other compelling, 
circumstances exist that make it in the public interest to make an 
award non-competitively; (3) a funding recipient is specified by an 
appropriations act or other applicable law; and, (4) recommendations 
in congressional reports, accompanying an appropriations act or other 
law, recommend an award to a particular recipient, and an award may be 
made consistent with applicable law, including any applicable 
executive orders. 

[13] Assessing programmatic progress and performance of a grant is one 
type of monitoring activity within OJP's overall monitoring program. 
Other types of monitoring include financial monitoring--to review 
financial aspects of a grant award and grantee--and administrative 
monitoring--to review compliance with grant terms and conditions, 
among other requirements. Programmatic and financial monitoring are 
carried out through communication with the grantee, desk reviews 
(reviews of documents in grantees' files to, among other things, 
assess grantee performance), and in-depth monitoring (consisting of 
site visits and enhanced programmatic desk reviews, which enable 
program managers to follow up on any issues identified during desk 
reviews). 

[14] NIJ's available allocation for awarding grants and nongrants does 
not constitute the entire appropriation because OJP initially assesses 
amounts for OJP-wide management and administration, among other things. 

[15] In 2008, the statutory language differed to some extent; within 
the appropriation for "DNA related and forensic programs," a certain 
amount was specified "for a DNA analysis and capacity enhancement 
program including the purposes of section 2 of the DNA Analysis 
Backlog Elimination Act of 2000..." Consolidated Appropriations Act 
2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844, 1910 (2007). Unlike the 
appropriations language for the subsequent years of our review, this 
provision did not also state that funds were available "for other 
local, state, and Federal forensic activities." According to officials 
from OJP's Office of the General Counsel, the statute lacked clarity 
but was reasonably read to give the agency authority to permit the use 
of funds for non-DNA forensic purposes. These officials told us they 
had discussed this issue with congressional appropriations staff at 
that time, and in 2009, the appropriations language explicitly 
included authority to provide funds for both "a DNA analysis and 
capacity enhancement program" as well as "other ... forensic 
activities." 

[16] Amounts related to the DNA Backlog Reduction Program ($343 
million) and other DNA backlog initiatives ($98 million) do not equal 
$442 million because of rounding. 

[17] A small portion of awards were provided to entities other than 
state and local governments. For instance, NIJ awarded about $3 
million of grants to for-profit companies to supplement state and 
local efforts to identify missing persons through DNA analysis. In 
addition, NIJ awarded about $3 million in contracts to for-profit 
companies to analyze convicted offender and arrestee DNA samples 
collected by state and local governments. 

[18] Specifically, the remaining $38 million of the $691 million 
appropriated went to management and administration of OJP activities; 
was transferred pursuant to statute to other research and statistics 
accounts; or went to adjustments, such as a statutory rescission of 
prior-year unobligated balances. Amounts related to DNA backlog 
initiatives ($442 million), initiatives that do not directly reduce 
the DNA backlog ($212 million), and other remaining expenditures ($38 
million) do not equal $691 million because of rounding. 

[19] Annual amounts available for obligation do not necessarily equal 
the total amount appropriated for the 5-year period, specifically 
because unobligated amounts carried over to the next fiscal year may 
increase the amount that OJP and NIJ can obligate beyond the enacted 
appropriation. 

[20] Unlike DNA backlog initiatives that were awarded primarily to 
state and local governments, other forensic science projects have been 
awarded to federal agencies (through interagency agreements), for-
profit companies, nonprofit groups, as well as public and private 
universities. For more information on other forensic awards, please 
see appendix I. 

[21] The amounts associated with DNA-related initiatives that are not 
directly supporting state and local efforts to reduce the DNA backlog 
($121 million) and forensic science initiatives that are not DNA 
related ($90 million) do not sum to $212 million in this report 
because of rounding. 

[22] According to NIJ officials, the DNA Forensics TWG provides input 
on DNA-related research and development and the General Forensics TWG 
provides input on forensic topics, such as crime scene investigations. 
There are a total of 20 TWGs. Although the TWGs provide input, 
according to NIJ officials, they are not tasked with or responsible 
for determining how to allocate funds. 

[23] In addition to solicitations, NIJ implements initiatives through 
interagency agreements (for awards provided to federal agencies) and 
contracts (for agreements with various nongovernment entities). 

[24] The federal government grant website--Grants.gov--provides a 
unified electronic storefront for interactions between grant 
applicants and the federal agencies that administer grant funds. The 
Grants Management System (GMS) is OJP's web-based, data-driven, 
computer application system that provides end-to-end support for the 
application, award, and management of grants. The electronic grant 
files contained within GMS are the official federal grant records of 
OJP. 

[25] With the exception of a standing peer review panel process 
piloted in fiscal year 2012, NIJ uses OJP's guidance--OJP Order, OJP 
Grant Application Peer Reviews--to conduct its peer review process. 

[26] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]. 

[27] Grantees of NIJ's DNA Backlog Reduction Program can use funding 
to analyze either DNA casework (from crime scenes) or DNA database 
samples (from convicted offenders or arrestee), or both. 

[28] Desk reviews include a comprehensive review of materials 
available in the grant file to determine administrative, financial, 
and programmatic compliance, as well as grantee performance. In-depth 
monitoring consists of site visits or enhanced programmatic desk 
reviews (implemented in fiscal year 2011) which allow grant managers 
to pursue any issues identified during the desk review and assess the 
status of project implementation. 

[29] Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of the 
Chief Financial Officer, 2011 Financial Guide (Washington, D.C.: July 
2012). 

[30] Office of Management and Budget, Circular No. A-11: Preparation, 
Submission, and Execution of the Budget (Washington, D.C.: August 3, 
2012). 

[31] Validation is the assessment of whether data are appropriate for 
a performance measure. See [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-99-139]. 

[32] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-99-139]. We 
conducted work in six agencies and identified examples illustrating a 
wide range of approaches for increasing the quality, validity, and 
credibility of performance information. 

[33] Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, FY 2014 
Performance Budget, March 2013. 

[34] See 31 U.S.C. § 1115. 

[35] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-96-118]. 

[36] GAO, Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Further Refine Its Tax 
Filing Season Performance Measures, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-143] (Washington, D.C.: November 
22, 2002). According to attributes of performance measures from 
various sources, such as earlier GAO work, Office of Management and 
Budget Circular No. A-11, and GPRA, among other sources, we identified 
that in order to track how programs and activities can contribute to 
attaining goals and missions, organizations need to have performance 
measures that (1) demonstrate results, (2) are limited to the vital 
few, (3) cover multiple program priorities, and (4) provide useful 
information for decision making. 

[37] In making appropriations to the Department of Justice for "DNA-
related and forensic programs and activities," Congress has specified 
the amounts to be obligated for specific programs and activities. For 
example, DOJ has been directed to use a large portion of the funds for 
"a DNA analysis and capacity enhancement program and for other local, 
State, and Federal forensic activities, including the purposes 
authorized under section 2 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act 
of 2000 (the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program)."We refer to 
efforts funded by these latter funds as the DNA and forensic program. 

[38] Such purposes included initiatives such as research, development, 
and evaluation, and forensic science training, among others. The 
remaining $38 million of the $691 million appropriated went to 
management and administration of OJP-wide activities; was transferred 
pursuant to statute to other research and statistics accounts; or went 
to adjustments, such as a statutory rescission of prior-year 
unobligated balances. For specific amounts allocated to management and 
administration of OJP-wide activities and adjustments, transfers, or 
carryover, see table 3. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
“E-mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

[End of document]